Thread: Hospital administrator, a nun, excommunicated for consenting to abortion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030631
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Story here and widely reported elsewhere.
Too harsh? Or should Sister have expected no less?
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Story here and widely reported elsewhere.
Too harsh?
Yes.
quote:
Or should Sister have expected no less?
No. The old boys club likes to kick the girls around. Now if the bishop and pope were women....
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
I find it odd that the story's headline mentions "rebuke," but not the sister's "automatic excommunication." I would think the nun in question would find that latter response far more harsh than a mere rebuke.
It appears that the committee was unanimous in its judgment that there was no way to save both mother and child.
Personally, I think she made the right decision, but if the reporting on RC abortion doctrine is correct, she clearly broke with the teaching of her church.
At times, I'm afraid -- and I mean no offense to Shipmates of the Catholic persuasion -- I find the RC church's stances inhuman. This is one such occasion.
Posted by hamletta (# 11678) on
:
I doubt the sister expected any less, but I kinda think she didn't care. She saved that woman's life.
But I disagree with no_prophet's concept that if the Pope were a woman, this wouldn't happen.
Plenty of female assholes to go around. I find the argument that if women ran the world, we'd have world peace and no hunger rather unconvincing.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
I doubt the sister expected any less, but I kinda think she didn't care.
The sister probably expected no less, but I would be very surprised if she didn't care. She had chosen to spend her life working in the church and I think it would be heartbreaking to be excommunicated. I assume the sister acted in the only way that her conscience would allow, and the church excommunicating her for doing this must be all the more heartbreaking.
Posted by hamletta (# 11678) on
:
Evangeline, you're right. That was a terribly glib remark on my part.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
This story shows that when the 'law' of the Church is wrong and goes against all conscience then you should break it.
The nun did the right thing.
And paid dearly for doing so ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
...
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
A mafia boss threatens (convincingly) that he will shoot both a mother and the baby in her arms. Unless that is if you smoother the baby with a pillow until it stops breathing, in which case he will let the mother go. You have no chance to overpower the mafia boss. Will you kill the baby, or not?
This is the same dilemma, rendered into a form making explicit that the RCC believes that the unborn child is an innocent human being with all human rights. (Of course, many people do not believe that. But the easy way out of declaring the fetus to be merely an ensemble of human cells is not, or should not be, available to the people involved here. So let's set that aside.)
Utilitarianism suggests that you should kill the baby to minimize the harm done. Natural moral law says that killing an innocent human being is great evil, and evil may not be done in order to achieve good. Therefore, you may not murder the baby in order to save the mother. The former is a global view of the situation, the latter is a local view of yourself. The best that can be done vs. the best that you can do.
Interestingly, most people tend to utilitarianism in the abstract, and natural moral law in practice. Thus it is one thing to declare in an utilitarian mode that you would kill the baby, and another thing to actually do it. You may consider that either as a failure or success of the human heart...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The bishop states the general Catholic principle that a Catholic who 'formally co-operates' in procuring abortion is automatically excommunicated.Excommunication is (unlike the abortion carried out)not a sentence of death.It can be revoked by the bishop.
Do we know from the article quoted whether the bishop actually excommunicated all those Catholics ( and presumably there were more than the good Sister).If these people saw themselves for ethical reasons obliged to carry out the abortion they may not consider themselves to have been excommunicated and it would need a clear word from the bishop to that effect.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
However, in real life equivalent situations, people do sometimes (?often?) kill the baby - take for example this story of the bear lake massacre.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
However, my-Dad-who-is-sitting-next-to-me says, that the real issue for the RCC (as he understands it) is that to kill the child to save the mother - both privileges this life over the eternal survival / salvation of the soul, and is to commit to a certain death caused voluntarily as an act of will over an uncertain death not caused by an act of will.
So essentially, in doing absolutely anything to keep someone alive you display a lack of faith in the value of eternal life. In killing you imperil your own soul. And you create a certain death, where before there would only have been the probability of a death.
He wishes it to be clear this is not his view of the situation.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
That kind of certainty is pretty terrifying I think.
...
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
I think that these dilemmas are more complicated than just 'choose who is to die' as if there were no other factors. For the record I would not kill the baby in IngoB's scenario because both of the potential victims are persons. I do not regard the fetus as a person, although it is human, although I realise that is not accepted by RCCs as a moral position. The most moral position is to offer your own life in place of the intended victims'. I have absolutely no idea if I'm brave enough to do that, and I pray that I never have to find out!
In the scenario in the OP, I would want to know about the whole situation. Are more children involved - in other words, was she already a mother? What did she want to do? I think there is an argument that the welfare of existing children might outweigh the life of the potential child. Also, I think the decision is the mother's rather than anyone else's. At my time of life, I would sacrifice my own life rather than have an abortion, but I might not have chosen that a few years ago when I had two little dependent children.
I suspect this makes me a pragmatist rather than any kind of moralist, but I'm comfortable with that.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
The most moral position is to offer your own life in place of the intended victims'.
Not really applicable for the mother here, since the baby was only 11 weeks into gestation.
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on
:
So the nun is excommunicated. What happens next? She can go to confession and God, being merciful, will forgive even if she is only imperfectly contrite. Or she can refuse to reconcile herself to the Church and wander in limbo.
The other question is whether the Church will let her continue as administrator if it has the say so.
[ 16. May 2010, 11:50: Message edited by: New Yorker ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Do we know from the article quoted whether the bishop actually excommunicated all those Catholics ( and presumably there were more than the good Sister).
No, but Bishop Olmstead has exercised his authority to excommunicate before, as reported here.
It is noteworthy, I think, that the priest in question was excommunicated not for debauching youth (which he appears to have done in spades), but for establishing a non-denominational youth center.
A year ago, when Arizonans voted on a proposition that would have allowed same-sex marriage, Bishop Olmstead recorded a sermon to be played at all masses in the diocese, ostensibly on the topic of the sanctity of marriage but in reality a diatribe against the proposition and instructing all Catholics to vote against it.
The bishop also denies the cathedral as a venue for performing groups who number gays among their members.
Posted by Gentleman Ranker (# 15518) on
:
Bearing in mind that this is only one outsider's view ... should have expected no less.
If I understand what it is to be a nun (and perhaps I don't), it is somewhat akin to being on active duty in a volunteer military. You take the shilling, you play by the rules. Sometimes the rules will be harsh, and sometimes you'll get caught in them through no fault of your own, but you've chosen to be subject to those rules, and should therefore play by them. Particularly since, unlike any military, one can simply walk away from the rules at any time should one decide that one doesn't wish to play anymore.
This is particularly true, IMHO, where the rules in question are receiving much attention and the rule makers have felt it necessary to hold a firm line on them.
Note that I do not address the issues of abortion, the RCC itself, utilitarian morality, or any other issue but what sister McBride should have expected in this situation. Neither do I express an opinion on whether her decision was right or wrong.
regards,
GR
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Actually, no-one has excommunicated the nun in question, as far as I can see - she excommunicated herself by her very participation. The excommunication is latae sententiae.
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A mafia boss threatens (convincingly) that he will shoot both a mother and the baby in her arms. Unless that is if you smoother the baby with a pillow until it stops breathing, in which case he will let the mother go. You have no chance to overpower the mafia boss. Will you kill the baby, or not?
I am not a utiliatarian and I believe that human life begins at the moment of conception. I would not smother the baby, but I do think that abortion to save the life of the mother is permissible. The principle of double effect (the distinction between foreseen and intended consequences) applies in the one case but not in the other.
The reason for this is that your analogy is far too inexact. With respect to the abortion, the act which saves the life of the mother and that which (you anticipate) will end the life of the fetus is necessarily precisely the same act whereas with respect to the mafia boss, the act of smothering the baby is not inherently salvific of the mother. If the fetus by some incredible miracle somehow survived the procedure, you would be ecstatic. With the mafia boss, if the baby somehow survived, you would be horrified because now he was going to shoot both mother and baby. That is, your intention in the first case is not to end the life of the baby but to save the mother, in the second case you intend to kill the baby.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Olmstead is quoted as follows:
quote:
While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.
Yet abortion is permitted for Catholics in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, is it not? That is a situation where the means of saving the mother's life is by directly killing her unborn child. There's no other way to do it.
What was different in this case? Did the bishop believe that the baby could have been saved (if not the mother) if the pregnancy had been allowed to continue? That perhaps a C-section at 24 weeks would have given the baby a 50/50 chance, and the mother could perhaps, with intensive care, have survived that long?
The Catholic Church also, as I understand it, does allow one person to kill a second person in order to protect the life of a third person, even when there is no absolute, 100% certainty that the second person is in fact going to kill the third person. A police officer can shoot and kill someone who is pointing a gun at the clerk in a convenience store, without having to ascertain first that the gun is real, loaded, and the suspect is a good enough shot to actually kill the clerk. It seems to me that the particular abortion in question would fall under the same principal. It's not like the mafia boss analogy that IngoB used. In that case, the mafia boss is threatening the life of the mother. In this case (as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy), it is the baby that is threatening the life of the mother. Unwittingly, unwillingly, in all innocence, of course. That's what makes things like this so painful for all concerned.
I don't see how the nun could have chosen otherwise.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am fairly 'anti abortion' (not that anyone could be said to be PRO abortion) but it is not merely utilitarian to perform one when the mother's life is at risk. Catholic moral theology also speaks of 'the law of double effect' (from Aquinas) whereby an act is judged by its INTENTION. If the intention is to save a life (the mother's) then the killing of the foetus/unborn child is collateral. This is much like the killing of civilians in a 'Just war'.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
So the bishop is not acting as a good catholic should,
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
No. The old boys club likes to kick the girls around. Now if the bishop and pope were women....
Which is just old, dried out male bovine excrement.
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
I think that these dilemmas are more complicated than just 'choose who is to die' as if there were no other factors. For the record I would not kill the baby in IngoB's scenario because both of the potential victims are persons. I do not regard the fetus as a person, although it is human, although I realise that is not accepted by RCCs as a moral position.
I just have to ask you: Why don't you regard it as a person? Is there any reason, or do you simply don't think it is? And the most important question: Do you know that it isn't a person?
Because if you don't know, morally you have no right to perform an abortion.
Consider this: (1) Either the fetus is a person or it isn't. (2) Either you know that the fetus is a person or you don't. This gives us four - and only four - options:
1. The fetus is a person and you know it.
2. The fetus is a person and you don't know it.
3. The fetus isn't a person and you don't know it.
4. The fetus isn't a person and you know it.
In the first case an abortion would be Murder One.
In the second case an abortion would be like shooting into a bush and accidentally killing your fellow hunter.
In the third case an abortion would be like no. two.
In the fourth case an abortion would be ok.
So the only way an abortion is morally ok is if the fetus isn't a person and you know it.
(Of course assuming that killing innocent persons is wrong.)
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
Don't drag this into Dead Horses please.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
How interesting that a sterile word like "utilitarian" should be invoked to justify allowing a mother and child to die when it is possible to save one of them.
The mafia boss thing is NOT analagous. The mafia boss might actually be trying to get you to kill the child, and if you refuse might not kill either (or might kill you). He could kill the mother anyway after you kill the baby. Someone who would set up such a situation is perfectly capable of lying. His intentions are inscrutable. In such a situation it would be impermissible to kill the baby.
Medical science is far less inscrutable, however. It changes its mind only slowly and after much research. True it deals mostly in probabilities, but some situations are encountered often enough that the probabilities are firmly based on past experience. There is something of a spectrum in "kill the foetus to save the mother" cases, ectopic pregnancy being at the far end (I think), and while this case doesn't maybe go that far, it seems perverse to say that medical opinion about the odds doesn't matter and let the two of them die.
Then again much about Catholic moral theology seems perverse.
[ 16. May 2010, 15:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
Complicating IngoB's scenario is that both baby and mother are no longer potential lives but actual ones.
While there's the potential, there is no certainty, at 11 weeks of pregnancy, that the fetus will survive to term and actually be born.
There is the possibility that the unborn child might survive in the womb long enough to kill the mother AND lose its own life, dependent on the mother, in the process.
In this situation, at least one life was saved. And I agree that, if this woman already had other dependent children, that factor should be taken into account.
I guess that I don't understand valuing potential over actuality, which, IMO, is what the church's stance does with the abortion question here, while it appears to do the reverse in the case of the nun, i.e. valuing the actuality of her decision versus the potential good she may have done.
[ 16. May 2010, 15:44: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Perhaps I am missing something here. Does Olmstead have a medical degree? If so, had he examined the patient personally?
Posted by five (# 14492) on
:
Here's what I don't understand. The sister was a member of the ethics committee, which ruled in favour of the abortion. I'm presuming the committee was a vote, and I'm also presuming that the sister, as a Catholic sister on an ethics committee stated the RC position on such things, which like it or not and there are reasons to do both, is quite clear and common knowledge.
My presumptions then continue that obviously, the sister was overruled.
If this is the case, why would she be excommunicated, even latae sentiae?
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
The thing IngoB's analogy misses is the fact that the foetus cannot survive without the mother.
But I'm wandering if there isn't a misunderstanding of how Catholic theology works. Presumably were the nun to go to confession and be absolved she would be reinstated? We see excommunication as a major thing and about keeping the rules and being pronounced by someone, but is that really how it should be seen in RC theology? Is it not more that certain actions have excommunication seen as the default response but the the sacrament of reconciliation is there to make it right. I would say that this was a case of choosing the lesser of two evils (the options seem to have been one or two dead humans) and this reminds us that whilst the lesser evil it was still not good.
Carys
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Why couldn't the abortion be done at another hospital not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church? Surely a Roman Catholic hospital isn't the only place in a city the size of Phoenix that a woman can get an abortion. She was only eleven weeks pregnant.
She is Roman Catholic nun. The Roman Catholic teaching on abortion is clear. She has authority in a Roman Catholic hospital. If she couldn't follow the Roman Catholic teaching, she should have resigned and done something else. Instead, the nun allowed the abortion knowing that it was contrary to Roman Catholic teaching and that she would probably suffer some sort of repercussions.
I disagree somewhat with the Roman Catholic teaching on abortion. I would want a hospital owned by my church to allow this abortion. However, I'm not Roman Catholic.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Complicating IngoB's scenario is that both baby and mother are no longer potential lives but actual ones.
While there's the potential, there is no certainty, at 11 weeks of pregnancy, that the fetus will survive to term and actually be born.
First; this assumes that the fetus is a potential life, and not a actual life. This distinction between 'potential' and 'actual' life isn't accepted in the Church. The fetus is actualized from the beginning of conception. Of course it might die, but that doesn't make it a 'potential life' any more than a fifty year old dying in a car crash is a 'potential life.' In both cases — speaking here from a Catholic perspective — one deals with an actual life dying.
Second; it assumes that it is permissible to kill a 'potential life' to save an 'actual life.' But in Catholic doctrine that is never permissible. One cannot do what is wrong to accomplish what is right.
And this is important, as the topic under discussion isn't abortion in and of itself. This is a discussion about a nun being excommunicated — or rather; excommunicating herself — for allowing abortion; for acting contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Roman Catholic teaching on abortion is clear. She has authority in a Roman Catholic hospital. If she couldn't follow the Roman Catholic teaching, she should have resigned and done something else.
If this is the Roman Catholic teaching on how to handle such a case, I don't see how any self-respecting medical professional can agree to follow the Roman Catholic teaching. On any reading but a Roman Catholic one, it is better to save one life than lose two. I can't see how any doctor could think otherwise, Catholic or no. Their job is to save lives.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
A couple of years ago I had to have a procedure, during which I was advised that I should have a tubal ligation because becoming pregnant would be life-threatening for me. At the time, my employer had sold our hospital to the local Catholic hospital and was leasing it until our new hospital could be built. I had to have it done in the clinic's ambulatory surgical center because St. V's would not allow the doctor to perform a medically necessary tubal ligation on their campus. So I believe any fool thing that the Catholic church does when it comes to women's reproductive rights.
For the record, I am pretty vociferously against abortion on demand, but even I can see that there are occasions when it is necessary.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This is a classic point of traditional C20 Catholic theology. There's a novel, I think called the Cardinal, from somewhere round 1950 that makes a big issue of it. It wasn't though, I don't think, traditionally directly part of the abortion debate. It was more about an obstetrical dilemma that arises less frequently now with better obstetrics than was the case forty + years ago.
In those days, this issue arose fairly frequently, particularly where mothers were weakened by having a series of pregnancies, and continuing to produce children at uncontrolled intervals well into middle age. So it was quite likely to mean that following the doctrine would leave other children motherless.
The classic dilemma, was where at point of delivery, it was possible to deliver the baby alive, only or almost predictably only, at the cost of the mother's life. In these circumstances it was quite often also possible to save the mother's life, but in ways that would either almost inevitably mean the baby died, or even the procedure itself would have that effect. So which life do you save?
The Catholic position was that the baby always, as a matter of authoritative doctrine, took priority.
I think this was on the basis that the mother had already lived and had the opportunity to achieve salvation. On the other hand, if the baby died, he or she was automatically condemned to limbo or worse, without being given the opportunity to be saved.
The Protestant position was much more nuanced and had to be decided on the most likely moral outcome at the time. It would for example, take into account the relative likelihood of either of them surviving. It would also be normal to expect the mother to express her view if able to engage in the process, and certainly her husband, rather than simply taking the line that doctrine decided for them. Moral responsibility rested on those involved, and could not be decanted from a stock of ethical regulations.
I do not know what the Orthodox position was.
I suspect in the case cited in the OP, this tradition is influencing the line taken by this diocese.
As a non-Catholic, I would be troubled that the implication is that the hierarchy should assume that moral responsibility for taking this decision lies either with the hierarchy or the sister, rather than with the mother and/or her husband.
I recognise this statement may horrify some shipmates. However, to me, this approach to decision making has slightly the flavour of sola Tridentine Mass in Latin, the ethical equivalent of following Archbishop Lefebvre.
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then again much about Catholic moral theology seems perverse.
OTOH, it is comforting, in this world of moral relativism, to have at least one organisation acting as a 'hard right shoulder'.
God only knows how much deeper into the 'Culture of Death' we'd be if not for the Church.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max_Power:
God only knows how much deeper into the 'Culture of Death' we'd be if not for the Church.
And since God only knows it's pointless to speculate. This is bordering on shark repellant. Maybe it would be better, since people weren't reacting to the entrenched and blind position of the RCC? Anyway I think you have a unrealistic opinion of the influence of the Catholic Church, at least in the USA.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
She is Roman Catholic nun. The Roman Catholic teaching on abortion is clear. She has authority in a Roman Catholic hospital. If she couldn't follow the Roman Catholic teaching, she should have resigned and done something else.
I was under the impression that the RCC permitted abortion in certain rare cases, where it is necessary to save the life of the mother -- ectopic pregnancy, uterine cancer, and the like.
Is that not true? And if it is true, what is different about this case? Why is it allowed (if it is) for an ectopic pregnancy, but not for this?
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Max_Power:
God only knows how much deeper into the 'Culture of Death' we'd be if not for the Church.
And since God only knows it's pointless to speculate. This is bordering on shark repellant. Maybe it would be better, since people weren't reacting to the entrenched and blind position of the RCC? Anyway I think you have a unrealistic opinion of the influence of the Catholic Church, at least in the USA.
Entrenched? Sure, although not in the perjorative sense which you would have it.
Blind? According to whom?
As for my '...opinion on the influence of the Catholic Church, at least in the USA...', well, I don't have one and not being an American, am not terribly fussed about it.
What I am pointing out is that in the West, where we seem to have lost moral compass, the Church has staked out a clear position on this issue. That, IMO, is a good thing, because she is not being swayed by the times and the fashion of the day.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well I'm confused. On the one hand you say:
God only knows how much deeper into the 'Culture of Death' we'd be if not for the Church.
Then you say you don't have an "opinion on the influence of the Catholic Church".
If the RCC isn't influencing the culture, in what way is it keeping us from being deeper into the 'Culture of Death'?
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well I'm confused.
Yes, you would seem to be.
I was not writing about America, I was writing about the West as a whole. Again, being neither American, nor having any experience of Catholicism in America, I cannot speak to the influence of the Church in America.
Back to the original premise, however, I would suggest that having the Church stake out a clear position on the sanctity of life is a good thing. You, obviously, disagree with either the notion that life is in fact sacred and to be cherished, or you disagree with the Church's position on the question.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I was not asking about America, I was giving you the opportunity to reduce your opinion to just America if you so chose. Hence "at least America" and not "in America". A subtle difference; maybe not all are able to get it on a first reading.
And you have not answered the question. In what way has the Catholic Church kept the "Culture of Death" from being worse than it might be? What evidence can you present for this? Or is it just so much "what if" gas?
If you say I disagree with the Catholic Church's position on this, you would be right. But I thought I had made that clear so I'm not sure why you're confused.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
I suspect that my comment might risk being too close to "dead horse" but it seems to me that this particular case - assuming that the facts of the mother's health were absolutely correct - is a case that demonstrates that there is no such thing as morality and ethics without a context.
For those who see an unequivocal choice here of the mother's health over the baby's, I wonder how an 11-week-old fetus is expected to be brought to term by a dead mother?
It seems that in the US Roman Catholic environment, the Sister probably could have expected nothing less but that she still did the right thing and chose to save one life rather than to passively stand by and facilitate the death of two lives. Good on her.
This case is not a triumph for morality at all. It's a triumph for the mindset that human beings are not capable of morality unless rigid legality is applied even to the point of doing terrible harm in exceptional circumstances.
This kind of mindset is a wolf in sheep's clothing and it's how evil and immorality triumph in the lives of good people.
[ 17. May 2010, 03:11: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Complicating IngoB's scenario is that both baby and mother are no longer potential lives but actual ones.
While there's the potential, there is no certainty, at 11 weeks of pregnancy, that the fetus will survive to term and actually be born.
First; this assumes that the fetus is a potential life, and not a actual life. This distinction between 'potential' and 'actual' life isn't accepted in the Church. The fetus is actualized from the beginning of conception. Of course it might die, but that doesn't make it a 'potential life' any more than a fifty year old dying in a car crash is a 'potential life.' In both cases — speaking here from a Catholic perspective — one deals with an actual life dying.
Second; it assumes that it is permissible to kill a 'potential life' to save an 'actual life.' But in Catholic doctrine that is never permissible. One cannot do what is wrong to accomplish what is right.
And this is important, as the topic under discussion isn't abortion in and of itself. This is a discussion about a nun being excommunicated — or rather; excommunicating herself — for allowing abortion; for acting contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
"Potential" was, in this instance, a poor choice of words. From an RCC perspective, I take it, the fetus naturally has as much an actual life as the mother does.
Except, of course, for the inconvenient fact that an 11-week-old fetus cannot survive outside the womb. Neither can it survive inside the womb of a woman who has died from complications of carrying said fetus.
In the abstract, the moral choice made by this nun was to agree to the saving of two lives, of one life, or or of no lives.
In this particular situation, saving both lives was not an option.
Given the age of the fetus, saving the unborn child was also not an option; it was not going to make it to viability, with the attendant possibility of baptism or salvation. Its mother, apparently, would have died before the fetus reached this critical point.
I cannot for the life of me see how preserving the one preservable life in this situation could be more morally wrong than allowing both lives to expire.
I am also wondering if the mother is now excommunicate, as well as her husband. Presumably they had some say in this process.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Second; it assumes that it is permissible to kill a 'potential life' to save an 'actual life.' But in Catholic doctrine that is never permissible. One cannot do what is wrong to accomplish what is right.
Sorry. Non sequitur. If it is wrong to kill the foetus, it is also wrong to kill the mother. So this is a double bind. The logic of that reasoning is that the only moral course is to let both of them die - but if you have the medical capacity to save either of them, how is that different from killing?
The nun would have been ethically frum, but both patients would have been dead, and the unborn foetus would presumably have ended up in limbo anyway!
For those who see an unequivocal choice here of the mother's health over the baby's, I wonder how an 11-week-old foetus is expected to be brought to term by a dead mother?
Good point.
This case is not a triumph for morality at all. It's a triumph for the mindset that human beings are not capable of morality unless rigid legality is applied even to the point of doing terrible harm in exceptional circumstances.
I agree. A harsh way, perhaps, of describing an approach to moral theology that I do not agree with. It does seem to me that this approach is treating ethical decisions in much the same way as whether one is or is not mixing two threads or when is and when isn't one eating a calf in its mother's milk.
It also seems to me that this approach to moral theology is letting people off responsibility for how they live their lives and the decisions they take. There is a rule. So how is a decisions a good or a bad one?
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Everyone here will now know,as Catholics have known for centuries,that the church is a 'church of sinners'. God however grants mercy to repentant sinners.Often that mercy of God is shown to repentant sinners in the Sacrament of Reconciliation(Confession).
However an excommunication,barring one from access to the sacraments,cannot be revoked through a simple confession.the bishop must be involved in this.
Whether the nun in question in this thread,as well as the others who participated in the abortion,excommunicated themselves automatically,is,I think, still debatable,as they may believe sincerely that they were following Catholic teaching in having this abortion carried out.
Miss Amanda mentioned a priest who had been formally excommunicated for opening a non-denominational youth centre.On reading his CV I see that he had already left the priesthood and had already been found guilty of abuse of young people.Presumably there was no Catholic input into hois opening of the Youth Centre but that the church found it better to separate itself completely from him before the church was accused of colluding in this action which might have led to further possibilities of sexual abuse.
Around 1949-50 pope Pius XII engaged in a campaign against Communism in Italy issuing a decree excommunicating those who supported in any way this ideology.The Decree of the holy Office said.:
'the faithful who enroll in the communist party or support it are not admitted to the sacraments, if this support is given freely and with full knowledge.
The faithful who profess the doctrine of communism in its materialistic and antiChristian forms and engage in propaganda are to be excommunicated as apostates.'
Even in this period one had to be aware fully of what one was doing,in particular,knowledge of the anti Christian doctrine of the Communist party.
Unless the participants in the abortion mentioned here believed that their actions were against Catholic christian principles they cannot have condemned themselves.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Quoting k-mann
This distinction between 'potential' and 'actual' life isn't accepted in the Church. The fetus is actualized from the beginning of conception. Of course it might die, but that doesn't make it a 'potential life' any more than a fifty year old dying in a car crash is a 'potential life.'
I understand that the RC church doesn't conduct funeral rites for "actual lives" that were not alive outside the womb.
Why is there a distinction between foetuses that never drew breath and those that have?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Why is there a distinction between foetuses that never drew breath and those that have?
I'm not an expert on this, but I think it's because it is breathing that makes us people rather than just bodies.
Gen 2:7 God formed Adam out of the dust, 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being'.
In Ezekiel 37, the prophet prophecies first to the bones and they become bodies 'but there was no breath in them'. It is only when he prophesies a second time to the wind/breath/spirit, 'Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these corpses that they may live', that they get up and live.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
I'm not an expert on this, but I think it's because it is breathing that makes us people rather than just bodies.
Hmm, but that completely undermines the RC position as espoused (probably correctly by K-Mann) that
quote:
This distinction between 'potential' and 'actual' life isn't accepted in the Church. The fetus is actualized from the beginning of conception.
In this argument htere is no difference between a breathing "person" and a non-breathing foetus.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held? The previous posts seem to imply not. If not, why not?
I wonder if the current view is in historical terms fairly new, because the process of fertilisation/conception was not just poorly understood but entirely misunderstood until quite recent historic times - no-one knew that women produced ova to be fertilised. They were just incubators for sperm and ( if I remember what I've read correctly, and I may not as it's off the top of my head) the resulting pregnancy wasn't counted as being a living ensouled thing until 'quickening' supposedly forty days later from the sperm being introduced.
I think there was maybe an older traditional view about the beginnings of life which has been eclipsed somewhere. The Bible is a case in point. People prefer to overlook that a lot of its older texts point to birth or in some cases even later, before recognising a child as having a life to be counted as equal in value to an adults. They do that by taking poetic texts such as the psalm about being 'known in the womb' and giving them a very literal reading and by taking the case of Mary and the annunciation to argue for specialness from conception (again often reading back modern attitudes into the older texts)
I wonder if the modern RC pro-life attitude is tied up in history with the evolution of Marian thought/devotion, but I don't know enough about the history. Must look into it sometime.
Perhaps someone else knows the history better?
L.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held? The previous posts seem to imply not. If not, why not?
I don't know the answer to this. But as far as I know, in the UK, a mother isn't permitted to have the body/remains of her child unless it is past a certain number of weeks of gestation (ie if you deliver your baby at such a stange of gestation that it qualifies as still born, you can bury him/her, whereas if you deliver your baby at such as a stage that it qualifies as a miscarriage, from the state's perspective, there is no body to bury. This must be enormously painful for parents the wrong side of the line to be able to have a funeral.)
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It also seems to me that this approach to moral theology is letting people off responsibility for how they live their lives and the decisions they take. There is a rule. So how is a decisions a good or a bad one?
I think it does. I think that the actual approach which we are seeing more and more of from the hierarchy is something like trying to institute centralized control from the top. In an army, you can't let every solider make his or her own decision and sometimes horrible collateral damage will happen for the sake of the greater good. In my view, this is the approach that is being espoused. If this administrator with responsibility and a professed religious into the boot, makes an exceptional moral decision, it sets an example for others who might not make decisions with wisdom but rather for selfishness. Better to set an example and maintain rigid legality in order to maintain control from the top.
(N.b. This is not to be considered an anti-Roman Catholic remark. It is meant to be a remark of discontent about the current "administration's" direction as I believe I see it.)
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held? The previous posts seem to imply not. If not, why not?
The rector of my (Episcopal) church says that one of the first baptisms he performed was a stillborn child. The parents were devout Catholics, and the Catholic chaplain had told them, "We don't baptize the dead."
Moo
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Hmm, but that completely undermines the RC position as espoused (probably correctly by K-Mann)
Evangeline, I agree with you, but then, I'm CofE, not RC.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Some thoughts:
This is a complex case that can't be summed up in a few paragraphs.
Did the nun fully explain RC teachings to the ethics committee? Or did she fail to explain (or understand) the teachings?
Was this really a case of save the mother or they both die? Is that a valid medical opinion of a pro-life doctor, or the opinion of an activist trying to get the camel's head under the door?
Death is a joy in the RCC. But killing is reserved for God.
The other side is that patients are under a doctor's care. Not treating patients is gross neglect. The doctor could be considered a murderer of the mother.
Exceptions are made for grave sins due to duress. This is an extreme case, so fear for the mother could mitigate the sin from being mortal. On the other hand, the nun was an ethicist.
Finally, this is Arizona, where the brown shirts roam the streets. I was watching Cops and saw a sherif's deputy, who was arresting a boy for a broken taillight (in front of his own home), call the boy's father out of his house and arrest him for resisting arrest (He didn't resist).
I'm not boycotting Arizona for moral reasons like so many libs, I'm just terrified to set foot in the state.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Was this really a case of save the mother or they both die? Is that a valid medical opinion of a pro-life doctor, or the opinion of an activist trying to get the camel's head under the door?
It seems to be the case that it was a case of "save the mother or they both die" which was the scenario I'm addressing. In considering women in general to be "activists" and women religious in particular, the Vatican will quickly make activists of any thinking woman who didn't have any intention at all of being an "activist" in the first place. I think that they have certainly made activists in religious communities that never would have entertained the idea. Rather like the McCarthy witch-hunts.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Death is a joy in the RCC. But killing is reserved for God.
It seems to me that the RC Church has made it very clear that in the case of pregnant women whose pregnancy endangers their own life and the baby's life, what the Church wants to see happen is that the baby's life always and in every case takes precedence over the mother's. And the action in this particular case is consistent with this thesis.
(At the risk of being a dead horse, I am against abortion except in scenarios like this one where a woman's life is genuinely in danger. And I'm appalled that the RC Church seems to view these scenarios not as complex moral issues but as a fairly simple case of "let a woman die".)
[ 17. May 2010, 16:39: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I'm not boycotting Arizona for moral reasons like so many libs, I'm just terrified to set foot in the state.
I'm tempted to steal this as my new tag line...
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Did the nun fully explain RC teachings to the ethics committee? Or did she fail to explain (or understand) the teachings?
Irrelevant, and it's beyond doubtful that a nun who was VP of the mission arm of the hospital, and on the ethics board, wouldn't be extremely well versed with the policies of the hospital and the RCC.
quote:
Was this really a case of save the mother or they both die? Is that a valid medical opinion of a pro-life doctor, or the opinion of an activist trying to get the camel's head under the door?
It was the expert opinion of *every* doctor and the ethics board. To impugn that their pro-life or pro-choice status had anything to do with their determination is repugnant.
quote:
Exceptions are made for grave sins due to duress. This is an extreme case, so fear for the mother could mitigate the sin from being mortal. On the other hand, the nun was an ethicist.
There was no sin here.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
No Seeker, this case is not consistent with your thesis. Since there was no chance the child would survive, it's not a case of putting the child's life first.
There will be a SCOTUS case in the next few years over whether RC doctors or hospitals can be required by law to perform abortions (part of the recent medical legislation? A new bill?). I suspect examples of RC hospitals performing abortions would go a long way toward convincing the court that they should be required. So, yes, I can see an abortionist trying to get an example of this. (BTW, the Church needs to do what's right, regardless of potential future legal consequences.)
If you think all women are abortionist activists, I'll pray for you. Or as they say in Dixie, "Bless your soul."
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held?
A funeral is available, but practically it doesn't often happen; as someone else has pointed out, the remains are often removed and destroyed by the medical authorities, and the option of a funeral may not even be considered at that stage.
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held? The previous posts seem to imply not. If not, why not?
The rector of my (Episcopal) church says that one of the first baptisms he performed was a stillborn child. The parents were devout Catholics, and the Catholic chaplain had told them, "We don't baptize the dead."
I'm surprised that any church baptises the dead to be honest. (Even Mormon 'baptism *for* the dead' is actually baptism *of* living people, isn't it?)
The RCC certainly baptises (conditionally) where there is any possibility that life is not extinct, but after death, it is not for us to baptise; what would be its purpose?
There is, of course, one possible purpose: to meet the desire of parents for some ceremony to mark their loss - and as with any other loss there are ceremonies and anointings which are available and which do make sense, where baptism itself would not.
[ 17. May 2010, 17:38: Message edited by: coniunx ]
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If you think all women are abortionist activists, I'll pray for you. Or as they say in Dixie, "Bless your soul."
Passive-aggressive use of prayer. Not recommended for spiritual growth. Toxic if inhaled.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held?
A funeral is available, but practically it doesn't often happen; as someone else has pointed out, the remains are often removed and destroyed by the medical authorities, and the option of a funeral may not even be considered at that stage.
Can you tell me when the RC church started providing this sort of funeral? Also what's the earliest gestational age for which a normal funeral would be offered? I'm quite curious about how liturgy reflects or doesn't reflect the doctrine on this?
L.
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Can you tell me when the RC church started providing this sort of funeral? Also what's the earliest gestational age for which a normal funeral would be offered? I'm quite curious about how liturgy reflects or doesn't reflect the doctrine on this?
I recall seeing a plot specifically for the unborn in a part of a Catholic cemetery somewhere in Europe with many graves evidently going back a long way; I've no idea whether it's always been done, though (I can find information that the 1917 Code of Canon Law made provision for it, but I have no access to any earlier Code - or indeed to the 1917 one in English).
As for the earliest age: Canon Law states no limit, and I wouldn't expect it to. Given that there is doctrine, practice really has no choice but to reflect it!
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx
I recall seeing a plot specifically for the unborn in a part of a Catholic cemetery somewhere in Europe with many graves evidently going back a long way; I've no idea whether it's always been done, though (I can find information that the 1917 Code of Canon Law made provision for it, but I have no access to any earlier Code - or indeed to the 1917 one in English).
I would assume that this is the area for those who are assumed to be in Limbo. They are not buried with those who are baptized.
I believe the doctrine about Limbo has changed in recent years.
Getting back to the OP, on the question of the seriousness of the woman's physical condition, here is information about pulmonary hypertension. Since pregnancy puts extra stress on the heart, it appears that there was a very serious risk of the mother dying before the fetus was viable.
Moo
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
No Seeker, this case is not consistent with your thesis. Since there was no chance the child would survive, it's not a case of putting the child's life first....
If you think all women are abortionist activists, I'll pray for you. Or as they say in Dixie, "Bless your soul."
Circumstantial evidence would suggest that the US arm of the RC church thinks that all women religious are "activists" since they are being investigated as such.
I would take your point about it being against my thesis if the RC church excommunicated people who killed in self-defense. A good example of a difficult moral decision where it might be necessary to take one life in order to preserve another.
In the case of abortion to save a mother's life, the RC church has elevated the best possible response - the saintly one of giving up one's own life even if the baby dies - to the only possible one that it will countenance. This is the only instance I know of where the church says one take the saintly path or be excommunicated.
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And you have not answered the question. In what way has the Catholic Church kept the "Culture of Death" from being worse than it might be? What evidence can you present for this? Or is it just so much "what if" gas?
Hi Mousethief, sorry it took so long to get back to you.
OK, back to the discussion. How has the Catholic Church kept the 'Culture of Death' from being worse than it might be? Tangentially, I believe you asserted that the Church has no influence over life in America (USA). Well, the National Prayer Vigil for Life is at least one action which demonstrates that not only does the Church continue to be a bulwark against the Culture of Death, but that it also retains some influence over life in the USA today.
Now, I would ask that you answer my question. You stated that the Church's teaching on the question was 'blind', 'perverse' and 'entrenched'.
Entrenched I believe we can agree upon. 'Blind' and 'perverse' however I take issue with. Evnagelium vitae is a very measured, disciplined doctrine on the sanctity of life. John Paul II and his crew are/were a pretty sharp bunch, and I doubt that they just cooked this up over a few beers and burgers one night in the Papal Apartments. So how is a carefully measured document such as this to be described as 'blind'? Tangentially, why is the doctrine 'perverse'? Is it that life is not sacred? Is it that just some life is sacred? Why would you assert that the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life is 'blind' and 'perverse'?
Were you just blowing 'what if' gas?
Regards,
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's perverse to allow 2 people to die when you could save one. And it's blind not to even consider this possibility.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Mousethief, "allowing" two people to die assumes you can save one of them. It might be that one can be saved. But all surgeries have risk. So we are killing one innocent life for a chance at saving another.
Suppose a runaway roller coaster was going to crash into a couple strolling down the midway. The only way to stop it is to push a very large man in it's way. Would that be the right thing to do?
It's not a simple question, and I don't pretend to have the answers. But calling the answers the RCC came up with 'perverse' and 'blind' is perhaps 'simple minded'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Mousethief, "allowing" two people to die assumes you can save one of them. It might be that one can be saved. But all surgeries have risk. So we are killing one innocent life for a chance at saving another.
That is ever the case, that all we have is a probability. But the probability in this case was very very high that the mother would die without the operation, and much much lower that she would die with it. Yes maybe it's not 0% and 100% but if we wait for those odds we'll never make any moral decisions at all.
Indeed with those odds, is it even a decision?
quote:
Suppose a runaway roller coaster was going to crash into a couple strolling down the midway. The only way to stop it is to push a very large man in it's way. Would that be the right thing to do?
Not at all the same question -- the man who would die is not one of the two who would die otherwise.
quote:
It's not a simple question, and I don't pretend to have the answers. But calling the answers the RCC came up with 'perverse' and 'blind' is perhaps 'simple minded'.
Alfred North Whitehead purportedly told his friend Bertrand Russell, "Bertie, there are two kinds of people in the world. The muddle-headed, and the simple-minded. I am muddle-headed, and you, Bertie, are simple-minded." Not horrible company, either one.
[ 18. May 2010, 01:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's perverse to allow 2 people to die when you could save one. And it's blind not to even consider this possibility.
Fair ball - in this specific case at least.
What I find troubling is where do we, as a civilisation, draw the line on questions of this nature? My genuine fear is that it's a very slippery slope, and that the West is deciding that life, like any consumer good, is disposable. I go back to my original premise that the Church, in setting out a hard position on the question of the sanctity of life is doing society as a whole a favour, if only insofar as discussions happen and questions are raised.
The very fact that we are having this discussion, right here, right now is proof that these issues need to be debated. How can that be a bad thing?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
No, I wouldn't say debating the issue is a bad thing.
Is the Grand Inquisitor right? Do we want the Church to make all our difficult decisions for us, because human freedom of conscience is too great a burden?
It reminds me of a post on another forum I frequent, referring to door-to-door evangelisation:
"Hello, we're from X Church. Would you like to be told what to do?"
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the Grand Inquisitor right? Do we want the Church to make all our difficult decisions for us, because human freedom of conscience is too great a burden?
No, not making decisions for us, after all, God gave us free will for a reason. Guiding us, and setting out right from wrong and studying the eternal questions, yes. There is a value to having somebody, anybody, draw a line in the sand. We already live in a society in which anything goes, shouldn't some limits be set? Canada doesn't even have an abortion law for crying out loud, and gave the murderer who managed to have it struck down its highest civilian honour! How's that for fu*ked up and lost moral compass?
BTW, who/what is the Grand Inquisitor?
Regards,
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx
I recall seeing a plot specifically for the unborn in a part of a Catholic cemetery somewhere in Europe with many graves evidently going back a long way; I've no idea whether it's always been done, though (I can find information that the 1917 Code of Canon Law made provision for it, but I have no access to any earlier Code - or indeed to the 1917 one in English).
I would assume that this is the area for those who are assumed to be in Limbo. They are not buried with those who are baptized.
I believe the doctrine about Limbo has changed in recent years.
There never was a doctrine about limbo: it was a speculative concept without any formal support (and indeed with a good deal of objection).
The fact that Canon Law didn't make any distinction relating to such cases does rather confirm that the Limbo concept was not actually accepted by the Church formally at that time, in doctrine or in correct practice.
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Dead right, Moo, re pulmonary hypertension.
I recall my cardiology tutor in final year med school (1978) commenting that there were almost no cardiac grounds for termination of a pregnancy and that that pulmonary hypertension with or without a septal defect was one. In that department, little has changed in the intervening years.
A pity the unfortunate woman had not applied to be sterilised before she conceived; that would have got through the ethics committee in a flash. I would not mind betting that she may have been advised against pregnancy before she conceived and I can tell you, her treating doctors would have moved Heaven and earth to let her carry her foetus to a viable state , were that possible.
Sad, but there you are. All this sententious talk about excommunication (whether by bell, book and candle or "self-excommunication" and yes, I know all about that) is so much hot air.
JP2 and his advisers worked from an a priori position that there was no leeway on the T (ermination)O(f)P(regnancy) position; as far as those guys were concerned, there was never going to be an OK position.
These decisions are best left to the medical experts and let the holiness brigade do what they are meant to do which is comfort the devastated ( and not just the unhappy mother in this case) .
No doubt the good Sister who had carried the can has accepted the hierarchical decision with due humility. If her faith is sufficient (and doubtless it is) she will deal with the short-sighted idiocy of whoever threw the book at her.
Let's hope that whoever threw the shit at the fan ( from a position of relative safely) is not sleeping well.
m
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A funeral is available, but practically it doesn't often happen; as someone else has pointed out, the remains are often removed and destroyed by the medical authorities, and the option of a funeral may not even be considered at that stage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell me when the RC church started providing this sort of funeral? Also what's the earliest gestational age for which a normal funeral would be offered? I'm quite curious about how liturgy reflects or doesn't reflect the doctrine on this?
L.
I can't comment on the RC, but, as someone who has miscarried at 11 and at 12 weeks, there may not be much to bury; especially if the loss occurred a few days before the actual miscarriage. I asked to see my 11 week baby and frankly, I couldn't work out what was "baby" and what was "general gory mess." And I was really trying hard to identify a foetus to grieve over.
My local maternity hospital sends all "products of conception" to the crematorium (or did at the time of my miscarriages.)
I know of one set of twins who died at well under 24 weeks gestation, weighing less than a pound between them. The parents wanted a funeral and got it.
FWIW, if the parents here (Aberdeen) want to have a funeral for a baby aborted for medical reasons, the Church of Scotland will provide a full funeral. (I don't know if all ministers would, but the hospital has a list of those who will.) I can think of two aborted babies who have had proper funerals.
(Hope I'm not straying into Dead Horses if I add a for miscarried and aborted babies)
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
There is indeed another decision that could have been made. The good Catholic ethics committee, and the Bishop could have told the pregnant lady, "You don't seem to be dying at the moment...and neither does your expected baby. We advise to let Almighty God and Nature take its course. God works in miraculous ways. Perhaps in his infinite wisdom, you'll be cured, somehow, and you'll be able to bear a healthy baby, and again, somehow, be able to tend to its needs and raise it. In the mean time, we (the hospital and doctors, etc) won't touch you with a ten foot pole! Have a nice day."
That takes the weight of the decision off the Ethics Committee, the nun, the Bishop, the physicians, the hospital staff, and the mother-to-be.
But,backing up a few months, the lady could/should have been counseled NOT to get pregnant in the first place, as it would be hazardous to her health. O well, too late now.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
Multipara: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I am not RC, and this instance sharply illustrates one of the reasons why. The church's teaching concerning abortion sems to me to assume that women, be they mothers or nuns, are simply expendable tissue.
[ 18. May 2010, 13:20: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I am not RC, and this instance sharply illustrates one of the reasons why. The church's teaching concerning abortion sems to me to assume that women, be they mothers or nuns, are simply expendable tissue.
So much as to say, "If you can't bring this baby to term, to Hell with you."
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
A mafia boss threatens (convincingly) that he will shoot both a mother and the baby in her arms. Unless that is if you smoother the baby with a pillow until it stops breathing, in which case he will let the mother go. You have no chance to overpower the mafia boss. Will you kill the baby, or not?
That's hardly an exact analogy.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the subject of the book and film 'Touching the Void' where, at one point Mr Simon Yates has the choice between cutting the rope supporting Mr Joe Simpson (who had broken his leg) or both men falling to an icy death. He cut the rope and, on the descent, having found the location where Mr Simpson had fallen was been unable to locate him, feared the worst and headed back. Meanwhile Mr Simpson, having survived through rather freaky good luck, managed through sheer bloody mindedness to make it back to base camp by alternately crawling and hopping on one leg. I gather relations between the two climbers are, unsurprisingly, a bit frosty (tish-boom!)but I have never heard a suggestion that Mr Yates behaved improperly. Perhaps the Pope can call for his prosecution when he hits these shores later this year.
I can't, morally, see a difference between the two cases beyond the fact that the Catholic hierarchy has a bug up its collective arse about abortion.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
There is indeed another decision that could have been made. The good Catholic ethics committee, and the Bishop could have told the pregnant lady, "You don't seem to be dying at the moment...and neither does your expected baby. We advise to let Almighty God and Nature take its course. God works in miraculous ways. Perhaps in his infinite wisdom, you'll be cured, somehow, and you'll be able to bear a healthy baby, and again, somehow, be able to tend to its needs and raise it. In the mean time, we (the hospital and doctors, etc) won't touch you with a ten foot pole! Have a nice day."
That takes the weight of the decision off the Ethics Committee, the nun, the Bishop, the physicians, the hospital staff, and the mother-to-be.
I'm not sure how taking the "you could die at any moment without this procedure, so we're chucking out untreated to maintain our philosophical purity" is consistent with any sort of medical ethics.
And isn't the whole "let's just wait for a miracle" thing more Christian Scientist than Roman Catholic? Though I suppose if it were considered a valid medical treatment it would really go a long way towards keeping down hospital costs.
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
It seems to me that a hospital should keep medical ethics as its highest priority, and The Church ought to keep Roman Catholic religious ethics as its business. When the two blend, there's going to be conflict.
Pardon my hazyness about the details of this, but I heard an interview with a sister from a RC convent, which has had its support withdrawn by the Bishop of that area. The sisters had openly given support to the Congressional Health Care Bill, and is being disciplined for that support.
Of course the stickingpoint is the erroneous idea of gov't money paying for abortions. The sister laughed and said that the publicity the little shrinking convent got through this trouble more than made up for the punishment by the Bishop.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
But,backing up a few months, the lady could/should have been counseled NOT to get pregnant in the first place, as it would be hazardous to her health. O well, too late now.
But then, might not she or her husband have been tempted to prefer over abstinence the use of an engine of iniquity?
Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on
:
I don't know...that's their own personal business.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
A pity the unfortunate woman had not applied to be sterilised before she conceived; that would have got through the ethics committee in a flash.
It wasn't the Ethics Committee that was a problem. Given that the Catholic Church's position on sterilization is the same as its position on abortion [don't], it's very likely that we'd be in the same place we are now with regard to excommunication.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Multipara, I'm a little unclear. Was this a case of pulmonary hypertension?
With an untreated survival rate of two to three years, this is a serious condition. Depending on the causes, even with treatment and no pregnancy the long term odds aren't good.
While this is sad, it does change the ethics question slightly. Killing the fetus may add a few months to the mothers life, but isn't really going to "save" her.
Hypothetically, it might be possible to keep the mother alive on life support while the baby develops. This would depend on technical particulars. It would also likely break a doctor's oath since it would harm his patient for the benefit of the baby.
OTOH, the mother will likely die soon anyway and the baby might be healthy.
Hypothetically, is this an ethical solution? "Should" the mother sacrifice by spending her last few months in intensive care so her baby can live? Or are we killing one to save the other again?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Multipara, I'm a little unclear. Was this a case of pulmonary hypertension?
With an untreated survival rate of two to three years, this is a serious condition. Depending on the causes, even with treatment and no pregnancy the long term odds aren't good.
While this is sad, it does change the ethics question slightly. Killing the fetus may add a few months to the mothers life, but isn't really going to "save" her.
Why are you making the assumption that her pulmonary hypertension would go untreated? And if you're not making that assumption, why is the untreated survival rate relevant? From Wiki (yeah, I know):
quote:
The NIH IPAH registry from the 1980s showed an untreated median survival of 2–3 years from time of diagnosis, with the cause of death usually being right ventricular failure (cor pulmonale). Although this figure is widely quoted, it is probably irrelevant today. Outcomes have changed dramatically over the last two decades. This may be because of newer drug therapy, better overall care, and earlier diagnosis (lead time bias). A recent outcome study of those patients who had started treatment with bosentan (Tracleer) showed that 89% patients were alive at 2 years.[12] With multiple agents now available, combination therapy is increasingly used. Impact of these agents on survival is not known, since many of them have been developed only recently. It would not be unreasonable to expect median survival to extend past 10 years in the near future.[13]
Levels of mortality are very high in pregnant women with severe pulmonary hypertension.[14] Pregnancy is sometimes described as contraindicated in these women.
I think DJ has illustrated the problems inherent in medical non-professionals prescribing a potentially life-ending course of action for patients better than any hypothetical I could come up with. Perhaps you should try giving the patient a little more credit for deciding on her course of treatment instead of opting for the whole incubation slave thing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max_Power:
BTW, who/what is the Grand Inquisitor?
Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner.
The Grand Inquisitor scene from The Brothers Karamazov is the heart of Dostoyevsky's Christian existentialism. The freedom of man is his (D's) core value; the grand inquisitor his chief enemy. I'm not sure Ivan's equation of the G.I. with the RCC is necessarily D's POV, or meant to reflect a certain type of 19th century Russian intellectual; no doubt gallons of ink have been spilt on that subject and a PhD thesis or two are still to be wrung out of it. But it does seem strangely resonant with the case this thread is discussing.
PS if you decide to read BK, read it in the Volokhonsky-Pevear translation.
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Jeff, I dunno whether this woman had pulmonary hypertension or what she had. You could look up the details of the case yourself; I admit I am not interested.
The only curative treatment for pulmonary hypertension is heart-lung transplant, and a lot of people die while waiting for this last resort.
As regards the viability of the foetus in this situation, not a hope. Pregnant women with this problem get into trouble ( severe cardiac compromise) early i.e beginning of the 2nd trimester. They don't make it anywhere near term. In the bad old days they died undelivered, and probably still do in places where there is inadequate care for them.
Whatever the primary pathology this case would not have come up for discussion if there had been the remotest chance that the pregnancy could have proceeded to (theoretical) foetal viability.
A sad tale indeed.
m
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Given that the Catholic Church's position on sterilization is the same as its position on abortion [don't]
Is sterilisation classed as a permanent engine of iniquity?
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on
:
Dunno and don't care.
And that is coming from a a Roman who had an elective tubal ligation 24 years ago . I remarked to the obstetrician who did the deed 4 months after the birth of my 3rd child that (at age 34) I was approaching amniocentesis age and was not interested in prenatal diagnosis of potential chromosomal nasties, so elected to bail out while ahead.
No doubt some RC apologist will be along to comment on the niceties of that decision but what the heck.
m
Posted by Boadicea Trott (# 9621) on
:
Between 1991 and 2004, there were 22 maternal deaths in the UK from pulmonary vascular disease. UKOSS prospective study.
It can most definitely be a death sentence to become pregnant with this type of problem; however, one study claims that the risk of pulmonary hypertension is "up to 50%" . Thorne et al
This is a far cry from almost certain death......though still pretty scary and appalling odds.
[ 19. May 2010, 11:33: Message edited by: Boadicea Trott ]
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, some forms are more treatable than others. Thus the caveat, "Depending on causes".
OTOH, I'm not a doctor. I was presenting hypothetical ethics dilemmas in an effort to show how complex this sort of decision is. Since it's so complex, I'm reluctant to second guess the bishop. Instead I will pray for all involved.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
OTOH, I'm not a doctor. I was presenting hypothetical ethics dilemmas in an effort to show how complex this sort of decision is. Since it's so complex, I'm reluctant to second guess the bishop. Instead I will pray for all involved.
Really? I'd be more reluctant to second guess the doctor and patient involved rather than endorsing someone else's second guessing of their decision, even if they're highly placed clergy. (Especially if they're highly placed clergy.)
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, some forms are more treatable than others. Thus the caveat, "Depending on causes".
OTOH, I'm not a doctor. I was presenting hypothetical ethics dilemmas in an effort to show how complex this sort of decision is. Since it's so complex, I'm reluctant to second guess the bishop. Instead I will pray for all involved.
But, as Croesos pointed out, you're more than happy to second guess the medical people whose responsibility is to treat the conditions. Nice.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A mafia boss threatens (convincingly) that he will shoot both a mother and the baby in her arms. Unless that is if you smoother the baby with a pillow until it stops breathing, in which case he will let the mother go. You have no chance to overpower the mafia boss. Will you kill the baby, or not?
I'm sorry. That is not what is going on at all.
What has happened is that the mafia boss has already shot one of a pair of siamese twins through the heart. As they were bleeding out an ambulance brought them straight to the operating theatre. If the surgeon tries to save both, the heart won't support them and there isn't a spare. Leaving the surgeon a choice of which to save. But if the surgeon doesn't save the one with a working heart then the heart will stop working and they will both die.
The choice is tragic. And clear. Two deaths or one.
And then you get an idiot flapping around in robes trying to get in the surgeon's way and insisting that he must ensure the death of both for his stupid religious purity. In short the believer in a so-called culture of life is trying to in a very literal way commit human sacrifice.
And, knowing the consequences, the nun was a hero.
(And I note that the only medical opinion offered by the RCC was that of the bishop's incredulity).
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
The bishop hopefully knew the people involved. Ideally he has the Holy Spirit guiding him and the best interest of all involved.
If this were a strictly medical decision, an ethical reason could be found. For example, in a case of pulmonary hypertension, the abortion was intended to reduce the stress on the heart, not kill the baby.
All the news articles go on about how unjust this decision was, but none try to explain it. They make the bishop out to be some sort of evil Nazi who follows rules even when they make no sense.
Well, I've known bishops and I've known reporters. When a reporter skimps on facts, it's my experience she has an axe to grind. When a bishop remains silent on pastoral matters, he's often protecting the privacy of the people for whom he's being attacked.
I don't trust reporters, I do trust bishops. That's just my experience, your milage may vary.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
All the news articles go on about how unjust this decision was, but none try to explain it. They make the bishop out to be some sort of evil Nazi who follows rules even when they make no sense.
I don't see how you can spin the facts of this case to come to any other conclusion.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If this were a strictly medical decision, an ethical reason could be found. For example, in a case of pulmonary hypertension, the abortion was intended to reduce the stress on the heart, not kill the baby.
Not according to your good friend, Bishop Olmstead. From his statement on the matter:
quote:
An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.
In short, according to Bishop Olmstead no ethical reason can ever be found for deliberately aborting a pregnancy.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, it's my understanding that a direct killing is one where the intent is to kill. If the intent was to kill the baby, then it was wrong. If the intent (and procedure) was to aid the mother, then it can be justified.
Thus, restricting the blood flow to non-essential organs will have an unintended effect of killing the baby. This is not a direct abortion. Since a direct abortion took place (according to the bishop anyway) this isn't what happened.
The ethics panel disagrees. They claim the abortion was "necessary to save the mother's life".
To me this indicates a dispute of the medical and social facts of the case. The bishop seems to be indicating this was either an unnecessary procedure approved by an activist nun, or the ethicist didn't know enough about ethics to justify the procedure, in which case she shouldn't be sitting on an ethics board.
Even though this happened in the land of the brown shirts, I still have to side with the bishop - until more facts come in. Loyalty is way underrated these days.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
The ethics panel disagrees. They claim the abortion was "necessary to save the mother's life".
To me this indicates a dispute of the medical and social facts of the case. The bishop seems to be indicating this was either an unnecessary procedure approved by an activist nun, or the ethicist didn't know enough about ethics to justify the procedure, in which case she shouldn't be sitting on an ethics board.
I can't find Bishop Olmstead disagreeing with the medical facts of the case, so it's really only the the "social facts" (is that synonymous with 'ethics'?) which are in dipute. The main disagreement can essentially be boiled down to the hospital's position that steps should be taken to save the mother's life and Olmstead's opinion that the proper thing to do was nothing, even if doing nothing was a certain death sentence for all involved.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, it's my understanding that a direct killing is one where the intent is to kill. If the intent was to kill the baby, then it was wrong. If the intent (and procedure) was to aid the mother, then it can be justified.
Thus, restricting the blood flow to non-essential organs will have an unintended effect of killing the baby. This is not a direct abortion. Since a direct abortion took place (according to the bishop anyway) this isn't what happened.
The ethics panel disagrees. They claim the abortion was "necessary to save the mother's life".
To me this indicates a dispute of the medical and social facts of the case. The bishop seems to be indicating this was either an unnecessary procedure approved by an activist nun, or the ethicist didn't know enough about ethics to justify the procedure, in which case she shouldn't be sitting on an ethics board.
Even though this happened in the land of the brown shirts, I still have to side with the bishop - until more facts come in. Loyalty is way underrated these days.
So. There is a medical dispute about whether a tragic procedure was necessary.
On one side you have the medical professionals responsible for treatment of the patient, with an intimate knowledge of the problems of the patient. On the same side you have the consensus of all the people on the medical board with full access to the patients medical records.
On the other side you have the Bishop, who almost certainly for confidentiality reasons did not know the patient, and was not in posession of either complete and up to date medical training or case notes.
You're welcome to side with the bishop here. I'll side with the people who have the best knowledge of the case - i.e. the doctors, and with the medical ethics group. Especially as the Bishop was apparently disagreeing with the principle rather than the detail of the case.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
So should bishops remain silent when activist baby killers are appointed to RC hospital boards?
Every single time it's going to look like this case does from the outside. There's going to be an ethics board brought up in a secular society that's willing to put forth propaganda about how this or that was needed to save the mother's life. Eventually they'll pick a case so egregious that the bishop has to take note.
Or this could be a case where the bishop went off the rails. It's hard to tell from the outside.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
I've gotten off my lazy ass and dug deeper. I don't know if this will change any minds, but it shows what the bishops thoughts were. Note he allows treatments that save the mother as long as they don't favor the mother at the expense of the daughter.
But he rules out certain abortion procedures as always being direct killing. I don't know enough to tell if this is true. I suspect he doesn't either. Yet it was likely true in this case.
Yet it's also clear that Sr. McBride not only signed off on these procedures, calling them good, and within RC teachings; she did so in a public way. She lied about RC teachings and led others into sin by doing so.
Claims of confidentiality on her part look a lot weaker when it turns out she's been going around telling tales.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
So should bishops remain silent when activist baby killers are appointed to RC hospital boards?
Like your leaps of faith, eh?
quote:
willing to put forth propaganda
I love the neutral words you use. It makes it really seem like you haven't prejudged the facts and evidence.
quote:
Or this could be a case where the bishop went off the rails. It's hard to tell from the outside.
Note that you're in a distinct minority, even among the Catholics here, in coming to this conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I've gotten off my lazy ass and dug deeper.
Wow. That is absolutely disgusting and horrifically awful. I honestly want to vomit reading that, and I'm glad I don't live anywhere near Phoenix, as I'd be glad to abort the bishop here.
quote:
I don't know if this will change any minds, but it shows what the bishops thoughts were.
It changes my mind to think that this, instead of being a move by a jackass bishop, is an absolute evil in RCC policy.
quote:
Note he allows treatments that save the mother as long as they don't favor the mother at the expense of the daughter.
Note that he'd rather see two people killed rather than one live. Appalling.
quote:
Claims of confidentiality on her part look a lot weaker when it turns out she's been going around telling tales.
Where you do even get the inkling to make such an unsupported claim?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff
quote:
I've gotten off my lazy ass and dug deeper
That makes me feel physically sick. I cannot believe that the bishop can have such a callous attitude towards a sick woman. Could he really look her her, her husband, and any existing children the couple might have, in the eye whilst explaining this?
And to Sr McBride.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Pjkirk, being "absolute evil" perhaps the RCC needs to be suppressed again. We could round up the priests and shoot them like the did in China, Russia, Mexico, ...
How could they be so evil as to present a consistent opinion on a controversial subject. (Yes, all the priests do is present an opinion.) Really, mass murder is the lesser evil, sometimes you have to kill some to save others, just ask Pol Pot.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
A couple of points, first the bishop said saving one was good, but you just can't murder another to do it.
Second, the sister discussed the case with the bishop. Why would she discuss a confidential case with the bishop? Were they just having tea one day and out of the blue she said, "I think I'll pop off and ok another abortion"? I don't think so.
I see a couple of possibilities. First, she's an abortionist activist and wished to rub the bishop's face in it. Second, persistent rumors were being spread and she was called to explain them, but didn't know how to say, "These are confidential cases." There are probably other possibilities, but they all ended with her discussing the confidential case, apparently in depth, with the bishop.
There are reasons ethics boards are in place, and one of them is to keep public leadership types like the bishop from needing to know individual medical histories.
Finally, I don't think this changed your mind at all. RC teachings on this subject have been and continue to be consistent. the only new thing here is the nun was caught murdering a baby.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
the only new thing here is the nun was caught murdering a baby.
No. She approved a medically necessary abortion. Any other language can go to the paddock AFAIC.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Pjkirk, being "absolute evil" perhaps the RCC needs to be suppressed again. We could round up the priests and shoot them like the did in China, Russia, Mexico, ...
How could they be so evil as to present a consistent opinion on a controversial subject. (Yes, all the priests do is present an opinion.) Really, mass murder is the lesser evil, sometimes you have to kill some to save others, just ask Pol Pot.
Useless blabber and irrelevant.
quote:
A couple of points, first the bishop said saving one was good, but you just can't murder another to do it.
Far better to leave two dead. Surely that's the moral choice.
quote:
Second, the sister discussed the case with the bishop. Why would she discuss a confidential case with the bishop? Were they just having tea one day and out of the blue she said, "I think I'll pop off and ok another abortion"? I don't think so.
You should really read the things you post a bit more. She admitted that she gave consent for the abortion to occur. That does not mean she divulged anything more about the case than the statement says.
quote:
I see a couple of possibilities. First, she's an abortionist activist and wished to rub the bishop's face in it. Second, persistent rumors were being spread and she was called to explain them, but didn't know how to say, "These are confidential cases." There are probably other possibilities, but they all ended with her discussing the confidential case, apparently in depth, with the bishop.
I see many possibilities also, all leading up to a morally good act being committed in the abortion, and nothing of what you post being any more substantiated than you talking out your ass.
quote:
Finally, I don't think this changed your mind at all. RC teachings on this subject have been and continue to be consistent. the only new thing here is the nun was caught murdering a baby.
And here you are, yet again, wrong. It actually did change my mind, since I thought the RCC was better than this. Once I gave up my new evangelical convert RCC-is-a-cult-itis, I respected the long measured view on theology from the RCC. I can still respect that. I can respect the many good things they do. But, I cannot consider them an appropriate moral authority after this disgustingly amoral policy. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
[ 19. May 2010, 19:58: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
And once again the RCC shows its institutional contempt for women. Jesus.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Pjkirk, as long as you can see abortion as a morally good act, we have little in common on this subject. I see it at best as the lesser of two evils.
Since medical conditions frequently resolve themselves without intervention, I have to wonder at what likely hood one can safely argue that killing an innocent is justified?
Do we go with a game science approach and say 51%? Can I go before a judge and say I shot an innocent man because I thought there was a 51% chance two would die if I didn't? What if I'm wrong?
If I were 99% certain, that might seem better odds. But what medical problem is 99% certain? Doctors are only that certain on T.V.
I had a friend once who's father was dying. The doctors assured her that he had started organ collapse and would be on life support for a few months before he passed. They wanted her to pull the plug. It's been over ten years and he's still alive. (And not on life support.)
Doctors misdiagnose. They make mistakes. It's an art, not a science.
I know the rest of the world sees fetuses as protohumans, but we Catholics see them as full human beings. God commanded us not to kill them. If we set that aside in our pride, He will hold us to account.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Pjkirk, as long as you can see abortion as a morally good act, we have little in common on this subject. I see it at best as the lesser of two evils.
The morally good act is allowing one person to live where otherwise two would die. And I've said repeatedly on these forums that I've against abortion with the exception of the health of the mother. But go on, be proud of your church's disgusting sickening evil amoral policies.
I hope this Sister moves forward to something better from here. The church doesn't deserve her.
[ 19. May 2010, 20:41: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If I were 99% certain, that might seem better odds. But what medical problem is 99% certain? Doctors are only that certain on T.V.
The case of ectopic pregnancy falls into this category. You've got not just a 99% but 100% probability that the fetus will never reach a level of development that would allow it to survive independently. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on this subject is fairly similar to the situation being discussed. The misplaced fetus cannot be removed, even though leaving it in place will endanger the mother. According to Catholic teaching it's only permissible to remove it after the mother starts hemorrhaging, since you're technically fixing the rupture which has the secondary effect of removing the fetus. Naturally this policy puts the mother's life (and future fertility) at much greater risk but, as DJ points out, the Catholic Church is usually willing to gamble with other people's lives and health if it will help them maintain ideological consistency.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Finally, I don't think this changed your mind at all. RC teachings on this subject have been and continue to be consistent.
I don't know who you're arguing with here. I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church's teachings on this matter are consistent. The disagreement seems to be over the question of whether the excess death and suffering they cause is a good thing.
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
oh ffs, sake Dumpling, shhh! you embarrass us all - this is CLEARLY a case where the principle of *double effect* applies- sheesh
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I know the rest of the world sees fetuses as protohumans, but we Catholics see them as full human beings. God commanded us not to kill them. If we set that aside in our pride, He will hold us to account.
And does God also command us to stand idly by while an adult woman dies under our noses?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Better two dead than one! This will ever be the Catholic cry! Bereave this woman's husband and children of their wife and mother, but for God's sake don't abort a doomed foetus. Let God kill them both: apparently the Catholic god likes that. Better two dead than one! Better two dead than one!
Let God do evil that evil may result! God forbid that we should play God and save a life where He wants to take both. Let's also stop rescuing people from collapsed mines and sinking boats: God has it in for those people and who are we to interfere? Better two dead than one! Better 25 than none!
[ 19. May 2010, 21:45: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
No, Mousethief -- the point isn't that two deaths trump one.
It's worse than that: consistency trumps morality.
Posted by Dumpling Jeff (# 12766) on
:
Croesos, both mothers and children have survived ectopic pregnancies. I guess even you can be mistaken about such things. For example Jayne Jones was given a 80% survival chance before her son was born. Many would have considered this a life of the mother situation.
Jahlove, I'm still not convinced this was a case of the double effect. Reading between the lines I get the impression that this hospital was performing "catholic" abortions. By that I mean there were doctors willing to stretch the truth on how dangerous medical conditions were and a nun willing to tell reluctant mothers that this was within RC teachings.
I cannot imagine a bishop who would go out of his way to make trouble for genuine life of the mother paradoxes. Even if a mother came to the wrong decision by some ivory tower standard, pastoral care would treat this area with compassion and discretion.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
Because bishops never grandstand or screw up. It's always lay people and religious women who ignore the medical facts or twist them to their advantage.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Because bishops never grandstand or screw up. It's always lay people and religious women who ignore the medical facts or twist them to their advantage.
DJ didn't say that. He just said he couldn't imagine it. In most cases such a lack of imagination the result of deliberate conformity to a predetermined narrative.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff
Croesos, both mothers and children have survived ectopic pregnancies.
Would you please give details of this? I can't imagine how it could happen.
Moo
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff
Croesos, both mothers and children have survived ectopic pregnancies.
Would you please give details of this? I can't imagine how it could happen.
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
People have survived falling out of airplanes from over 5000 feet, too, but it's hardly recommended and not odds you should take in a bet.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff
Croesos, both mothers and children have survived ectopic pregnancies.
Would you please give details of this? I can't imagine how it could happen.
Moo
It was a non-tubal ectopic pregnancy....very rare. The egg "landed" in the fatty tissues on the outside of the bowel, and an amniocentesis formed. It took a very long time for them to find it, since the placenta had to rip off of the bowel for them to see it wasn't in the womb.
Delivered very premature (28 weeks iirc) at just over 2 pounds. First time this has been done in the UK and possibly the world.
Dailymail is right to call it a "miracle baby": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050942/Miracle-baby-Billy-grew-outside-mothers-womb.html
Another perhaps even more surprising birth in 2008: full term ovarian pregnancy in Aus
So, what I glean from this is that Jeff wants us to simply pray for a miracle. How is that any better than Christian Scientists/etc?? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It's sad when the suggestion earlier in the thread for the hospital to discharge the woman might be the best one. At least she could have her life saved at the non-Catholic hospital.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
oh ffs, sake Dumpling, shhh! you embarrass us all - this is CLEARLY a case where the principle of *double effect* applies- sheesh
No, technically, it isn't. Double effect only applies if the death of the fetus was indirect. The examples given on this thread are ectopic pregnancies and uterine cancer.
It is hairsplitting that I wouldn't do. But, I'm not Catholic. Being a Roman Catholic means accepting that the old men in the red and white clericals get to split the hairs
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
the only new thing here is the nun was caught murdering a baby.
No. She approved a medically necessary abortion. Any other language can go to the paddock AFAIC.
Agreed. If there is anything clear about this case it's that it was extremely difficult and that there really was no best case scenario or Really Good Decision to be made here.
The casting of the situation as being one where people hate babies and are agitating for their deaths does a disservice to this situation and to Truth not to mention to the women involved.
At least, for goodness' sake, shed a tear for the woman whose life was in danger. I very much doubt that the woman woke up one day saying "Let me conceive a child in order that I can kill it; that would be good for a laugh".
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Reading between the lines I get the impression that this hospital was performing "catholic" abortions. By that I mean there were doctors willing to stretch the truth on how dangerous medical conditions were and a nun willing to tell reluctant mothers that this was within RC teachings.
Mind pointing out the lines you've read between? On what basis can you make this claim?
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I cannot imagine a bishop who would go out of his way to make trouble for genuine life of the mother paradoxes.
You don't have to imagine him. You've been confronted with a news report about, and a letter from, such a bishop.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Even if a mother came to the wrong decision by some ivory tower standard, pastoral care would treat this area with compassion and discretion.
1. Excuse me? What wrong decision did this mother come to? Are you now claiming that women will themselves, independent of outside help, into a state of pregnancy?
2. Could you kindly point out an instance or two of the tender pastoral care shown by this bishop toward (A) the mother, and (B) the hospital administrator?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Thank you for the link to the download of the diocesan Q&A. That type of logic chopping approach to the pastoral is one of my points of disagreement with the RC church.
It consistently gives me the impression that it provides a discipline so as to let people off engaging with the messiness of pastoral reality. There's an answer. That's it. Problem solved. Cost irrelevant. Implications irrelevant. No particularity. We are ethically frum. So we don't need to love the real people.
I also have a long standing suspicion that this tradition comes from having a clerical establishment which is entirely unmarried, men who sit in their presbyteries and brood, but do not have to deal with real wives and real children.
However, there's also something else that troubles me in the linked text.
quote:
She gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching.
Am I the only person who would find this statement both odd and disturbing? Did she really say that?
This is a tragedy. This mother-to-be had a serious, life threatening illness. As a result, there is an agonising choice, both morally and emotionally. Any of the likely results were at best a 'least worst option'. Whichever decision the mother takes will leave long term pain for her (possibly death) and the rest of her family. To me there's all the world of difference between 'allowable' i.e. permitted, and being able to make the much more positive statement, 'morally good'. That language almost implies that at any moment there is one decision and one alone, that is the right one, and all others are wicked. That isn't the way things are.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
I cannot imagine a bishop who would go out of his way to make trouble for genuine life of the mother paradoxes. Even if a mother came to the wrong decision by some ivory tower standard, pastoral care would treat this area with compassion and discretion.
If you actually read the FAQ you yourself linked, his opening answer was:
quote:
Is abortion ever allowed, even to save the life of the mother?
No. Abortion is never permitted as an end or as a means. Abortion is always immoral since it
constitutes the direct killing of an unborn child.
In short, he openly and explicitely says that in life of the mother cases (and I don't know why you are calling them paradoxes) abortion is still banned.
He goes on to say:
quote:
If the baby cannot survive outside the womb and the mother may die, isn’t it better to save at least one life?
First, we have to remember that a physician cannot be 100% sure that a mother would die if she
continued the pregnancy.
Second, the mother’s life cannot be preferred over the child’s. Both lives are equal, both have an eternal soul and both are created by God. No one has the right to directly kill an innocent life, no matter what stage of their existence.
It is not better to save one life while murdering another. It is not better that the mother live the rest of her existence having had her child killed.
In short he is literally and openly saying that it is better that the mother dies than lives in this case.
Why is this thread in purgatory rather than hell.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Sometimes you have to choose the last bad choice. But clearly Catholic morality makes this impossible -- you must choose the "correct" choice, and there is always a "correct" choice. It's not like real life at all.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
The following is long, so in an effort to motivate at least some people to read part I mention that I respond to the following people: Sean D, Josephine, leo, mousethief, Apocalypso, Carys, Enoch, Seeker963, Evangeline, Dumpling Jeff, Gildas, Justinian, and Crœsos.
I gave an analogy here to a gangster threatening to murder mother and baby, unless one kills the baby for him. I'll defend this analogy a bit - not because it is instructive (it does not teach anything new), but because it is illustrative (it helps get a feel for the opposing position). I find many posts here are way too far into hyperventilating rant mode, frankly.
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
With respect to the abortion, the act which saves the life of the mother and that which (you anticipate) will end the life of the fetus is necessarily precisely the same act whereas with respect to the mafia boss, the act of smothering the baby is not inherently salvific of the mother. If the fetus by some incredible miracle somehow survived the procedure, you would be ecstatic. With the mafia boss, if the baby somehow survived, you would be horrified because now he was going to shoot both mother and baby. That is, your intention in the first case is not to end the life of the baby but to save the mother, in the second case you intend to kill the baby.
The overarching intent (the "end") in the medical case and the analogy is to save at least the mother, since one is not capable of saving both. The direct intent (the "means") in both cases is to kill the baby, since the action one performs (abortion / asphyxiation) clearly is designed to end the life of the baby. The act of smothering the baby is "salvific" for the mother in the analogy by construction, and it is precisely this act which will save the mother. The analogy of the baby somehow surviving the abortion would be to smother the baby and later, once the gangster releases the mother, to resuscitate the baby successfully. Of course one would be ecstatic if that worked.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A police officer can shoot and kill someone who is pointing a gun at the clerk in a convenience store, without having to ascertain first that the gun is real, loaded, and the suspect is a good enough shot to actually kill the clerk. It seems to me that the particular abortion in question would fall under the same principal. It's not like the mafia boss analogy that IngoB used. In that case, the mafia boss is threatening the life of the mother. In this case (as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy), it is the baby that is threatening the life of the mother. Unwittingly, unwillingly, in all innocence, of course. That's what makes things like this so painful for all concerned.
Your robbery case is not a good analogy to this medical case, since there the person killed is not innocent but (reasonably assumed to be) guilty. Both in the medical case and in my analogy, the baby is threatening the mother's life, in all innocence, through an external agent. In the medical case it is by the agency of pulmonary hypertension, in the analogy by the agency of a gangster. In both cases one would like to eliminate the external agent, but can't.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am fairly 'anti abortion' (not that anyone could be said to be PRO abortion) but it is not merely utilitarian to perform one when the mother's life is at risk. Catholic moral theology also speaks of 'the law of double effect' (from Aquinas) whereby an act is judged by its INTENTION. If the intention is to save a life (the mother's) then the killing of the foetus/unborn child is collateral. This is much like the killing of civilians in a 'Just war'. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect So the bishop is not acting as a good catholic should,
This is an incorrect application of "the law of double effect". If you read the description at the Wikipedia link that you've provided yourself, your analysis fails to take into account "2. The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect." Unfortunately, in both the medical case and my analogy, it is precisely the bad effect (ending the life of the baby) by which one achieves the good effect (survival of the mother).
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The mafia boss might actually be trying to get you to kill the child, and if you refuse might not kill either (or might kill you). He could kill the mother anyway after you kill the baby. Someone who would set up such a situation is perfectly capable of lying. His intentions are inscrutable. In such a situation it would be impermissible to kill the baby. Medical science is far less inscrutable, however.
It is true that the range of possible actions of a person is generally larger than that of a disease. However, I do not see any force in this argument. The primary point of my analogy, as stated in my post, was to make the RC belief that the fetus is an innocent human being with the usual rights explicit for those who do not believe so. A secondary point was to make the dilemma more concrete. Dealing with an invisible disease by killing a basically invisible human makes abstraction easy, and I think this changes the mode of moral reasoning. Since these are my intentions, I think it is reasonable to fix the behavior patterns of the people in the analogy with (otherwise unrealistic) certainty to match the clinical case. It is just a thought experiment to clarify the moral evaluation.
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Complicating IngoB's scenario is that both baby and mother are no longer potential lives but actual ones. While there's the potential, there is no certainty, at 11 weeks of pregnancy, that the fetus will survive to term and actually be born.
You may be run over by a car five minutes from now, nevertheless it would be evil to murder you. Predicted "survival chances" or "expected life span" can play a valid role in directing one's efforts to prolong life, e.g., in a triage situation or when health funds are running out. But it is not true that it becomes less evil to prematurely end life that has low survival probability. Otherwise why not for example shoot everyone over 80?
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The thing IngoB's analogy misses is the fact that the foetus cannot survive without the mother.
The baby in my analogy also cannot survive without the mother. Admittedly, this is so because both are in the hands of the gangster in the analogy, rather than because the baby will die (immediately) without the mother (as for the fetus in the medical case). But I do not see how that could impact on moral reasoning about whether one should smother the baby or not?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On any reading but a Roman Catholic one, it is better to save one life than lose two.
This however is not the question at hand. The question is whether it is better to kill one person and thereby save a second one than to let both of them die by not interfering. Your statement carefully avoids spelling out what the RCC actually sees as the problem here: the morality of one's own acts.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The Catholic position was that the baby always, as a matter of authoritative doctrine, took priority.
If it was authoritative doctrine, then I'm sure you can point to some authoritative document stating this. The RCC is rather famous for painstakingly documenting its authoritative doctrines.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is that not true? And if it is true, what is different about this case? Why is it allowed (if it is) for an ectopic pregnancy, but not for this?
A direct abortion is not allowed, also in the case of ectopic pregnancy. However, salpingectomy (removal of the part of the tube in which the fetus is contained) is allowed. One has to admit that the distinctions made here are so fine as to be worrisome, but the idea is that the intent is to remove "diseased tissue" (namely the inflamed tube) in order to save the mother, so that there is no direct intent to kill the fetus (though it will invariably die once the tube containing it is removed). The "double effect" can be applied. A reasonable write-up can be found here.
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
For those who see an unequivocal choice here of the mother's health over the baby's, I wonder how an 11-week-old fetus is expected to be brought to term by a dead mother?
That one is not allowed to murder is not changed by the fact that people do in fact die of natural causes. From the RC perspective in this case, the murder of someone who is going to die of natural causes could save someone else who is going to die of natural causes. The question is whether the murder thereby becomes justified. The RC answer is that no, it doesn't. Because we are morally responsible for our own acts, not for the world per se, murder is evil, and one may not do evil in order to achieve good.
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I understand that the RC church doesn't conduct funeral rites for "actual lives" that were not alive outside the womb. Why is there a distinction between foetuses that never drew breath and those that have?
Certainly there can be funerals (or memorial services, if there are no remains) for stillborn babies in the RCC. However, it is correct that the RCC does not baptize the dead, hence the situation is like that of an unbaptized person. Hence there is no right to a Catholic funeral in this case, since only baptized Catholics in good standing have a right to a Catholic funeral. However, a refusal would be highly unusual. See also here.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Death is a joy in the RCC. But killing is reserved for God.
There may be some way in which this statement is not completely wrong. But since on the face of it this sounds as if the RCC is a death cult, rather than a pilgrimage to eternal life, why confuse the situation with careless statements?
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I would take your point about it being against my thesis if the RC church excommunicated people who killed in self-defense. A good example of a difficult moral decision where it might be necessary to take one life in order to preserve another. In the case of abortion to save a mother's life, the RC church has elevated the best possible response - the saintly one of giving up one's own life even if the baby dies - to the only possible one that it will countenance. This is the only instance I know of where the church says one take the saintly path or be excommunicated.
The case of self-defense is quite different, because the attacker is guilty precisely of attacking. One can judge self-defense basically along the lines of "just war" (CCC 2309, adapted): the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the defense must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. Disallowing the abortion here has nothing to do with requiring heroic sanctity of the mother, but rather with requiring the avoidance of murder from the medical personnel. A self-defense situation that would be more similar to the case at hand would be perhaps something like pulling an innocent bystander into the line of fire in order to avoid getting shot.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Perhaps a better analogy would be the subject of the book and film 'Touching the Void' where, at one point Mr Simon Yates has the choice between cutting the rope supporting Mr Joe Simpson (who had broken his leg) or both men falling to an icy death. He cut the rope and, on the descent, having found the location where Mr Simpson had fallen was been unable to locate him, feared the worst and headed back. ... I can't, morally, see a difference between the two cases beyond the fact that the Catholic hierarchy has a bug up its collective arse about abortion.
Not having seen the movie, and not entirely understanding the description (are they hanging on the same rope?), I cannot say whether some fine distinction with regards to "double effect" would be possible here. However, the situation is also different insofar as that both men presumably went into that high risk situation together with deliberate consent and full knowledge. This would imply at least a tacit understanding that such an action could be required, and a choice by both to nevertheless go ahead. Whether that is sufficient to fully reduce "murder" to "shit happens" is a good question, but certainly it should have some moral impact.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm sorry. That is not what is going on at all. What has happened is that the mafia boss has already shot one of a pair of siamese twins through the heart. As they were bleeding out an ambulance brought them straight to the operating theatre. If the surgeon tries to save both, the heart won't support them and there isn't a spare. Leaving the surgeon a choice of which to save. But if the surgeon doesn't save the one with a working heart then the heart will stop working and they will both die.
In the situation you describe, it would depend on whether the surgeon does something to stop the Siamese twin with intact heart from dying, which happens to kill the other Siamese twin as an unintended (though possibly obvious) side effect. Then the action is OK by "double effect". If however the surgeon does something to kill the Siamese twin with the shot heart, and thereby saves the other twin, then it is murder. I cannot really think of an example for the latter, the possible procedures I can imagine (like closing an artery to stop the blood loss) all arguably fall under the former. Hence this case is likely OK by "double effect". The case at hand is however such that one kills the fetus in order to stop the pregnancy, which saves the mother. That is "doing evil to achieve good", which is morally forbidden.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The case of ectopic pregnancy falls into this category. You've got not just a 99% but 100% probability that the fetus will never reach a level of development that would allow it to survive independently. The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on this subject is fairly similar to the situation being discussed. The misplaced fetus cannot be removed, even though leaving it in place will endanger the mother. According to Catholic teaching it's only permissible to remove it after the mother starts hemorrhaging, since you're technically fixing the rupture which has the secondary effect of removing the fetus.
This is false information. See above.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sometimes you have to choose the last bad choice. But clearly Catholic morality makes this impossible -- you must choose the "correct" choice, and there is always a "correct" choice. It's not like real life at all.
There's a difference between choosing the least bad alternative, and doing evil. The former is usually a good idea, the latter never. And "real life" is simply what we all make it. That's the tragedy and the glory of the human condition.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QB] He goes on to say:
quote:
If the baby cannot survive outside the womb and the mother may die, isn’t it better to save at least one life?
First, we have to remember that a physician cannot be 100% sure that a mother would die if she
continued the pregnancy.[/B]
This is the part of the quote that seems to me to give the game away.
If it is always wrong, as the bishop claims earlier, to kill an unborn baby, then 100% certainty of the mother's death, even if obtainable, could make no difference to the morally-acceptable outcome: both must die.
In short, laywomen are reduced to wombs-on-legs.
Given the state of the third world, where unclean water, unhygienic conditions, and nonexistent-to-iffy medical care pose very high risks to women in childbirth, one wonders to what extent the Church's third-world clinics contribute to, as well as relieve, residents' misery.
[ 20. May 2010, 15:39: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I suppose Jesuitical understanding can differentiate between this and "just war" where taking human life is okay to achieve a different end?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The question is whether it is better to kill one person and thereby save a second one than to let both of them die by not interfering. Your statement carefully avoids spelling out what the RCC actually sees as the problem here: the morality of one's own acts.
Better to let them both die and keep your own hands clean than to save one of them and get 'em dirty, is that it?
I pray that if I'm ever in such a no-win situation I'll have the courage to save as many lives as I can, even at the cost of my salvation, rather than letting everyone else die so that I can keep my own soul pure.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I suppose Jesuitical understanding can differentiate between this and "just war" where taking human life is okay to achieve a different end?
I should certainly think so -
An enemy soldier in wartime is trying and planning to kill you. He has the intention to do you harm. Whereas the unborn child is simply existing.
Not at all the same thing.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I suppose Jesuitical understanding can differentiate between this and "just war" where taking human life is okay to achieve a different end?
I should certainly think so -
An enemy soldier in wartime is trying and planning to kill you. He has the intention to do you harm. Whereas the unborn child is simply existing.
Not at all the same thing.
Bullshit. If there is an absolute proscription of doing evil to achieve good, then it doesn't matter how nice the soldier you're shooting is.
If there is not an absolute proscription of doing evil to achieve good, then letting the mother die in this circumstance is unconscionable.
Which is it?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Agreed. Clearly a soldiers is not the same as a fetus. But the point is that in the latter case the RC teaching appears to be that double effect is not an adequate defence if the primary act is to kill. The double effect doctrine only saves us if we are chopping out a bit of diseased fallopian tube, which then turns out to have a fetus in it.
So it's difficult to see how the double effect doctrine can allow you to kill a solider as a primary act despite it being part of a just war.
Presumably there's some other line of reasoning that gets you off the hook for killing a soldier in RC teaching. Which presumably can't be applied to fetuses.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Perhaps it's intention. The soldier is intending to kill you but the foetus isn't intending to kill the mother.
Still, once you open a crack in the "never do evil to achieve good" wall, you're on the hook for the mother's life. Unless you want to say killing isn't evil if it's a nasty icky soldier who wouldn't be shooting at you if you had stayed home and minded your own business. Jesuits have amazing abilities to rationalize.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
So the implication is that the enemy soldier had it coming? Might be difficult to construe since we can't know their motives, degree of culpability etc.
But this is speculation on speculation.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
IngoB, I earlier withdrew, as a poor choice of words, my characterization of fetal life as “potential.” However, that’s not the total substance of your issue with my post. Your response --
quote:
. . . it is not true that it becomes less evil to prematurely end life that has low survival probability
-- certainly has merit, and I take your point. However, the reason we do not “shoot everyone over 80” is that there is no evidence that the continued existence of those over 80 poses any immediate mortal threat to those under that age.
According to the bishop’s letter – again, I am not RC and not familiar with RC teaching, but I trust that an active bishop is – the life of the mother and the life of the fetus she carries are of equal value. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that an 11-week-old fetus is a full and actual human life (it’s possible we don’t all subscribe to this belief, but let that go for now), this principle is one I think we can all respect (if we could agree on the meanings of "life" and "human," etc.).
The problem is that, when applied on a case-by-case basis in situations like the one under discussion, the outcome creates a uniform, across-the-board inequality; in following the moral teachings of the church, the mother’s life is invariably forfeit. As a practice, then, this results in the systematic devaluing of the lives of one class of human beings (mothers) over against the lives of another class of human beings (fetuses).
I think it's the systematic application of the principle here which creates this inequality, and the inequality is at odds with the church's own teachings.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
The thing is, the act of "killing", shorn of other qualifiers, is not an intrinsic evil. A police officer shooting a criminal, a pilot bombing an enemy, a prison warden pulling the switch on an electric chair - these things, under the right conditions, are allowed, not just as the "lesser of two evils", but maybe even as a positive good.
The act of killing an innocent person however, which abortion by definition falls under, is inherently wrong.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So the implication is that the enemy soldier had it coming? Might be difficult to construe since we can't know their motives, degree of culpability etc.
But this is speculation on speculation.
Just War assumes soldiers are engaged in fighting just that. So, if a soldier is fighting in a just war, the assumption is that the other soldiers motives are not good. They are not being killed for their existence.
At the same time, Mousethief is correct. Once you allow for killing in self-defense, then you allow the taking of a life to save another life. Even Pat Robertson supports abortions to save the life of the mother as an act of self defense. Roman Catholics just choose to draw the line somewhere else. It is a line rejected by the rest of Christianity. When you find yourself to the right of Pat Robertson on an issue, you should probably rethink your position.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
If it is always wrong, as the bishop claims earlier, to kill an unborn baby, then 100% certainty of the mother's death, even if obtainable, could make no difference to the morally-acceptable outcome: both must die. In short, laywomen are reduced to wombs-on-legs.
Naturally it is always wrong to kill an unborn baby, what else could be the case (if you accept for the sake of argument the RC position that the unborn baby is a human being, which obviously is innocent)? The situation of pregnant women is however very special, I agree. Which is why I am in favor of both legal and moral leeway for these issues. In fact, I think current canon law enforcing automatic excommunication is wrong: not in the judgment of the act, but by not taking into account sufficiently the "extenuating circumstances" which commonly are associated with it. I think it is a "tough law deterrent policy", and I'm quite generally skeptical about that. I note that the RCC could move on this without abandoning the moral judgment of the act, and I personally hope that it will.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Better to let them both die and keep your own hands clean than to save one of them and get 'em dirty, is that it?
If you add that "getting your hands dirty" here means committing a grave evil, rather than experiencing some discomfort through a hands-on task, then yes, that's the gist of it.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Bullshit. If there is an absolute proscription of doing evil to achieve good, then it doesn't matter how nice the soldier you're shooting is. If there is not an absolute proscription of doing evil to achieve good, then letting the mother die in this circumstance is unconscionable.
Killing an enemy soldier is not generally an evil act, hence the comparison fails. It is helpful to remember that a proper translation of the relevant commandment would be something like "You shall not unlawfully/unjustly-kill."
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So it's difficult to see how the double effect doctrine can allow you to kill a solider as a primary act despite it being part of a just war. Presumably there's some other line of reasoning that gets you off the hook for killing a soldier in RC teaching. Which presumably can't be applied to fetuses. ...
So the implication is that the enemy soldier had it coming? Might be difficult to construe since we can't know their motives, degree of culpability etc.
Double effect is not what allows you to kill an enemy soldier, but rather the simple fact of him attacking you. And indeed, this gets abstracted to him "having it coming", insofar as that it is not necessary for the enemy soldier to shoot at you before you may shoot him. Rather, Catholicism does allow for the "meta-level" of governing authority, which can indeed order you to "shoot the enemy on sight". That governing authority has to accept the moral responsibility for these orders, but it can do so with reference to the "meta-level" as well. So a country A may wage a defensive war against aggressor country B, even though in order to win the war soldiers of A will on occasion be the aggressors against defensive soldiers of B, considered on an individual level.
Double effect comes into play if you ask whether you may bomb an enemy position (a good end if part of a just war) in spite of knowing that non-combatants will be killed (the unintended evil side effect). The answer is then a conditional yes.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
I think I'd also like to know more about this concept of fetal innocence. I hope my ignorance of RC doctrine may be overlooked long enough to generate a response:
In a very general way (whatever training I've had in Christian theology is (A) sketchy church school variety and (B) mostly Protestant), I have been operating under the belief that there is no innocence, theologically speaking, for human beings (at least not since the Fall). We are conceived and born in sin.
Yet the innocence of the fetus (again, apparently (I may be mininterpreting here) over against maternal sinfulness (she can't escape this any more than any of us can) seems to be a factor, since it gets mentioned repeatedly, in the default election of saving fetal life over maternal life, where choice must be made.
Am I understanding this correctly? If not, somebody set me straight.
If this understanding is correct, I must take issue with it. If the fetus takes on full humanity at conception, how does it escape sin? How is it any more innocent than, say, its mother who has just confessed, done penance, and received absolution (or whatever this may be called in the RC tradition)?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
The problem is that, when applied on a case-by-case basis in situations like the one under discussion, the outcome creates a uniform, across-the-board inequality; in following the moral teachings of the church, the mother’s life is invariably forfeit. As a practice, then, this results in the systematic devaluing of the lives of one class of human beings (mothers) over against the lives of another class of human beings (fetuses).
I think it's the systematic application of the principle here which creates this inequality, and the inequality is at odds with the church's own teachings.
I take your point. Yet first I think this is simply not true in practice. See the already mentioned example of ectopic pregnancy. The end result of the "Catholic approved" treatment there is a dead fetus, rather than a dead mother. Similarly, a woman can have a hysterectomy in spite of being pregnant, if this is necessary due to cancer. Etc. In all these cases the death of the unborn baby is an unintended side effect. The problem in the case at hand is that it is not a case of the treatment killing the baby, but rather that the treatment is killing the baby. And that is forbidden. I'm not sure what the comparative stats are for all these kinds of cases, but certainly it is not 100% for the baby. I would in fact be rather surprised if in most cases it isn't the fetus getting killed.
Second, Catholicism is egalitarian only in very specific ways. It is certainly not Catholic teaching that all people must have as identical living conditions as possible. Justice implies giving everyone their due, not the same. Thus inequality is not a priori incompatible with Catholicism. Third, I think the ability to give live to a new human being is a great privilege women have. It is indeed an indictment of our society, and of many other societies in the past, that women may not feel terribly privileged about that at all. Nevertheless, a privilege it is, and as with most privileges, it comes with responsibilities, duties, and risks attached. I think it is illusory to try to "fix" this. God will fix this one day. But here and now I think the way to deal with this "biological inequality" is not to pretend that we can eliminate all its negative consequences. Rather we should compensate the added responsibilities, duties and risks women face due to the "mechanics" of procreation by appropriate privileges of social and material kind.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Is there a difference, in the infallible morality of the Catholic Church, between taking a life and allowing a person to die by inaction? There must be for this ruling to make sense.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
The problem is that, when applied on a case-by-case basis in situations like the one under discussion, the outcome creates a uniform, across-the-board inequality; in following the moral teachings of the church, the mother’s life is invariably forfeit. As a practice, then, this results in the systematic devaluing of the lives of one class of human beings (mothers) over against the lives of another class of human beings (fetuses).
I think it's the systematic application of the principle here which creates this inequality, and the inequality is at odds with the church's own teachings.
I take your point. Yet first I think this is simply not true in practice. See the already mentioned example of ectopic pregnancy.
I was speaking specifically of the situation raised in the OP; apparently all such pregnancies pose a mortal threat to the mother and hence also the fetus she carries. Ectopic pregnancies (as do the other examples you mention) pose, apparently, different sets of risks and possibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, Catholicism is egalitarian only in very specific ways.
One of which, apparently, concerns life itself. Again, I was referring to this specific statement of equality by the bishop in his letter, not to issues that may have been raised, for example, by Dorothy Day's efforts among the working poor.
If their lives truly have equal value, though, this surely calls for detailed consideration or debate, not the rigid application of a rule, before an action is taken or a decision is made. In this instance, it looks (from the outside) as though the hospital administrator engaged in such consideration, while it looks (again, from the outside) like the bishop simply applied the rule.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Third, I think the ability to give live to a new human being is a great privilege women have. It is indeed an indictment of our society, and of many other societies in the past, that women may not feel terribly privileged about that at all. Nevertheless, a privilege it is, and as with most privileges, it comes with responsibilities, duties, and risks attached.
Is this also part of Catholic teaching -- that giving birth (albeit risky) is a privilege? I fully agree that treatment of women generally, and mothers in particular, by many societies does nothing to privilege them.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is illusory to try to "fix" this. God will fix this one day. But here and now I think the way to deal with this "biological inequality" is not to pretend that we can eliminate all its negative consequences. Rather we should compensate the added responsibilities, duties and risks women face due to the "mechanics" of procreation by appropriate privileges of social and material kind.
Agreed.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
A direct abortion is not allowed, also in the case of ectopic pregnancy. However, salpingectomy (removal of the part of the tube in which the fetus is contained) is allowed. One has to admit that the distinctions made here are so fine as to be worrisome, but the idea is that the intent is to remove "diseased tissue" (namely the inflamed tube) in order to save the mother, so that there is no direct intent to kill the fetus (though it will invariably die once the tube containing it is removed). The "double effect" can be applied. A reasonable write-up can be found here.
I read the write-up with mounting disbelief. Basically, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy which hasn't started to rupture the fallopian tube has four treatment options - a) wait-and-see, on the basis that many ectopic pregnancies miscarry naturally, b) a injection to end the pregnancy, which leaves her fallopian tube intact c) a partial removal of the fallopian tube, leaving the possibility of the tube being repaired d) full removal of the tube.
According to the article a) and d) are permissible, but b) and c) aren't.
I'm curious as to the reaction of medical staff if they offer the least invasive option b) only to be told by the woman; No, I want a full general anaesthetic, I want the most extensive surgical option, and I want to have my ability to have a further pregnancy curtailed, because that's the choice my religion insists I make.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
A direct abortion is not allowed, also in the case of ectopic pregnancy. However, salpingectomy (removal of the part of the tube in which the fetus is contained) is allowed. One has to admit that the distinctions made here are so fine as to be worrisome, but the idea is that the intent is to remove "diseased tissue" (namely the inflamed tube) in order to save the mother, so that there is no direct intent to kill the fetus (though it will invariably die once the tube containing it is removed). The "double effect" can be applied. A reasonable write-up can be found here.
I accept this is not strictly the correct use of the word, but IMHO the above and quite a lot of the other reasoning in this thread have crossed such boundary as may lie between casuistry and pilpul.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Yet the innocence of the fetus (again, apparently (I may be mininterpreting here) over against maternal sinfulness (she can't escape this any more than any of us can) seems to be a factor, since it gets mentioned repeatedly, in the default election of saving fetal life over maternal life, where choice must be made. Am I understanding this correctly? If not, somebody set me straight.
No, you are not understanding this correctly. The point is that there is such a thing as lawful and/or just killing of a person. This is invariably due to the intentional actions of that person, which are in some form criminal and/or evil. However, a fetus cannot act much at all, and certainly cannot intend any action that could be judged criminal and/or evil. Hence killing the fetus cannot be justified due to its intentional actions, since there are none, and that is the point of calling the fetus "innocent". In the case at hand the fetus is threatening to kill the mother, but due to tragic circumstances, not because it is murderous.
You also misunderstand original sin, at least as far as Catholic teaching is concerned. It is not a sin in the usual sense of the word, since one cannot sin without understanding and consent. But up till the age of reason (about seven years old) these are not sufficiently present to allow sinning in the proper sense, which is why children below this age are called "innocents". Traditionally original sin is seen as a loss of original justice through Adam, causing severe disharmony in human nature, combined with a representative function of Adam for all his descendants. In modern words, you could say that we are "sinful by origin" as individuals because the general human makeup is flawed, and as humanity because we are caught in a web of systemic evil through family and society; and that neither can be fully cured by natural means.
While this is true also for the fetus, it makes no difference here. As "sinful by origin" as it may be, the fetus does not have the capacity to perform intentional acts, and hence is necessarily innocent even if it is the cause of death.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there a difference, in the infallible morality of the Catholic Church, between taking a life and allowing a person to die by inaction? There must be for this ruling to make sense.
Likely there is, however, contrary to what you claim this is irrelevant here. For one cannot be guilty of inaction if no moral course of action is available in the first place.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So the RCC doesn't understand the "least evil of the available options"?
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
This thread has turned quite effectively into a thread about abortion, and belongs in another, hotter place.
I'm willing to give it a chance to stay in Purgatory, but the rope is short.
John Holding
Purgatory Host
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
Ummm. I am not at all sure if this post is allowable. I'm hoping to address the issue of the equality of lives. Well, I guess there's only one way to find out:
The bishop's letter speaks to the equality of lives. In this situation, the principle does not hold up to the practice.
Acting – or rather, not acting – according to RCC moral precepts, the mother, in cases of pulmonary hypertension, always dies.
I do not see how these lives, in practice, are being held as equal. If premature death is an evil for the fetus, it is an evil for the mother. Despite this, it is being expected of the mother. Further, it will be expected of every mother so situated, and I have to say I think this will produce, in short order, a routine devaluation of all mothers’ lives; they end up looking expendable, and will be so regarded.
If two classes of lives are truly equal – in practice, and not just as dance steps on the head of a pin – then we would expect outcomes to reflect that equality, and show (between two options) a roughly 50-50 ratio. That is not what this teaching produces. I’m afraid the equality the bishop writes of is a figment of theological imagination.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Sorry; I'll try to rephrase my last point in a more general way.
ISTM that Jesus came to a people who were having their religion squeezed dry by the petty legalism of the Pharisees and that He came to us with a big message of Divine love and concern.
And now apparently religious people sit around making fine legalistic distinctions about the circumstances in which medical assistence can be offered to potentially dying women, and about just how many millimeters of fallopian tube require to be removed in the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy.
FFS- aren't there enough real problems in this fallen world of ours, without making legalistic distinctions about milimeters of fallopian tube? Doesn't God see a bigger picture that that?
I'm trying to envisage how Jesus could have simplified this by turning it into a parable. And I'm not having any success.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
NEQ, I can't just quote extracts from your last post because I agree with everything you have just said in your latest post. Thank you.
The bishop's letter speaks to the equality of lives. In this situation, the principle does not hold up to the practice.
It looks more as though he's actually implying, 'because other people in our estimation devalue unborn life as weighed against born life, we going to overvalue unborn life as against born life so as to make our point'.
I don't think this is about abortion by the way. I think debates about abortion are influencing some of the positions, but the issue is a quite different one. Abortion is about getting rid of a foetus that a mother does not want to bring to term. This debate is about how one balances the claims of a foetus that a mother cannot bring to term but we assume would like to, and a mother who would otherwise die.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Better to let them both die and keep your own hands clean than to save one of them and get 'em dirty, is that it?
If you add that "getting your hands dirty" here means committing a grave evil, rather than experiencing some discomfort through a hands-on task, then yes, that's the gist of it.
I like to think that, were I in such a hideous no-win situation, I would freely choose to so enanger my own salvation in order to preserve someone else's life. Putting their needs ahead of mine in such a way seems the only christian thing to do...
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Apocalypso said: quote:
I do not see how these lives, in practice, are being held as equal. If premature death is an evil for the fetus, it is an evil for the mother. Despite this, it is being expected of the mother.
This is the problem I have with Catholic teaching; however often they may claim that they make an exception for cases where the life of the mother is in danger if the pregnancy continues, in practice when confronted with a case like this they say abortion is not allowed. In effect, any woman in this situation is required to commit suicide regardless of whether the sacrifice of her life will result in the birth of a living child.
Jane R
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Host Hat On
We've had further discussions amongst Purg Host and believe this thread is now predominantly about abortion per se. Which makes it a proper candidate for Dead Horses. That's where it's going.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Host Hat Off
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
Well, our migration to the Nag Cemetary seems to have brought this discussion to an abrupt halt.
Personally, I'd still be interested in a response, from defenders of the Church position, to the unequal "equal lives" stance.
Posted by Erin (# 2) on
:
I'm more curious for those who were in the Hell thread about the child raping priests who argued that they should not be excommunicated because they've relied on the Church for so long or whatever retarded reason they gave to explain why it's perfectly OK to put a clause in canon law stating that anyone who has any part of an abortion is automatically excommunicated. Doesn't the RCC have an obligation to the nuns as well? Or does it only count when men promise their lives to the RCC?
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on
:
An important book on this subject is Martin Rhonheimer's "Vital Conflicts in Medical Ethics: A Virtue Approach to Craniotomy and Tubal Pregnancies" by Martin Rhonheimer. He submitted this slim study to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith about ten years ago, which in turn requested that the study be published for discussion purposes among specialists. It has only last year been published in English. It is also not the official view of the Congregation, but the fact that the Congregation requested its publication is nonetheless significant.
In short, Fr. Rhonheimer, in a closely argued case, attempts to redescribe the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" abortion in such a manner that in the case where a mother and unborn baby will forseeably die, the "abortion" action is from the moral point of view, not a killing, but exclusively saving the one life possible. Rhonheimer's argument purportedly excludes proportionalist and consequentalist moral reasoning and also purportedly would not allow a therapeutic abortion where the mother's life is merely in danger, in which cases Catholic doctors would have the obligation to save both mother and child. Whether his argument is cogent, who knows.
Reading the tea leaves, it seems that the CDF has been for some time quietly revisiting past Holy Office rulings on the subject of the "extreme conflict" situation where both the mother and unborn child will die if left untreated and the mother's life is the only possible life that can be saved.
Now that the nun-administrator of the hospital appears to be under excommunication, if she decides to challenge the excommunication and appeal to Rome, there could very well be some interesting developments in the coming years. Same is true if the hospital chooses to appeal to the American bishops conference and Rome.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
Verrrry interesting.
I wonder if we should take up a collection, buy two copies, and send one to Bishop Olmstead and one to the hospital administrator.
I do wonder, though, what the chances are tyhat she will, or can effectively, appeal, given that she's been rebuked, and is excommunicated.
And what Erin said.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
There is only one time when a system of ethics is worth more than a sparrow's fart. And that is when you need to choose between two wrong choices - choices between right and wrong are easy and the Golden Rule is normally more than sufficient. (Of course making the right choice is not always as easy as knowing what it is). According to IngoB, the Roman Catholic system of ethics can categorically not help in any hard moral cases and counsels inaction. Therefore it can not be worth more than the sparrow's fart. And as this case so clearly demonstrates, it's worth less.
Actually the brand of RC ethics espoused by IngoB are worse than the valueless I branded them above. Anyone who has not had their moral sense twisted by the valueless sophistry of the Roman Catholic Church instinctively knows that you save what you can - and that is good. So the canon of Roman Catholic ethics in this case not only would be useless - it's actively harmful, preventing people for doing good and punishing them when they do.
I'm just glad that some influential members of the RCC haven't had their morals entirely perverted by the teachings and best efforts of the RCC - for instance Fr. Rhonheimer (as mentioned by Shadowhund).
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Thank you, Justinian. That's been bothering me throughout this conversation -- the idea that one can choose only the good. The comments earlier in the thread that the soldier in a just war killing the soldiers on the other side is doing something that is morally good, or the police officer killing the guy threatening the patrons in the convenience store is doing something morally good, are nonsense.
Killing another human being is evil. It's never, ever, ever good. It's not good for soldiers to kill other soldiers. It's not good for cops to kill perpetrators. Any killing of another human being -- even killing in self-defense, even killing by accident -- is evil. It's evil because every human being, however innocent or guilty, was made by God as a living icon. Each human being is of such value to God that God chose to become incarnate, to suffer, to die, and to be raised on the third day for the sake of that one single person. If we love God, we cannot ever say that killing someone who is infinitely precious to him is a good thing.
Rather, the only thing we can say is that sometimes this evil thing is worse than that evil thing, and we do the best we can by choosing the lesser evil. We sometimes choose to do evil so that a greater evil can be prevented.
To say that a soldier in a just war is doing good is crazy -- war is evil. The only way to fight a just war, it seems to me, is with the full recognition that every death -- not just the deaths of noncombatants, but every death inflicted by the war, that all harm caused by the war, is evil. But there are times where the harm caused by not fighting the war would be greater than the harm of fighting it, that the deaths would be more numerous by not having the war than by having it. Then you choose to do the lesser evil, in order to prevent the greater evil.
In the case of a pregnancy where the doctors believe that both the mother and the baby both likely die if the pregnancy is not terminated, there isn't a good choice. Letting them both die is not a good choice. Taking the life of the baby to allow the mother to live is not a good choice. But you have to choose one or the other. And it's no good arguing that, in letting them both die, you aren't doing anything. If you saw someone bleeding profusely, and you sat and watched them bleed to death, when it was in your power to save them, you're as guilty of their death as if you killed them directly. Sins of omission are still sins.
We live in a fallen world. It's messy and difficult, and sometimes all our choices are evil. We pray, and do the best we can, and ask God to be merciful, because he is good and loves mankind.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Personally, I'd still be interested in a response, from defenders of the Church position, to the unequal "equal lives" stance.
I'm not a defender of the RC position, but that argument doesn't have much merit. The relationship of mother and unborn child is assymetric, inherently unequal, and it is that, not the ascription of value to one life above another, that makes the difference to survival prospects if RC ethics are followed.
If you could contrive a situation where it was necessary to directly kill (ie. murder) the mother if the unborn child were to survive, RC ethics would forbid that murder just as much as they forbid directly killing the child to save the mother. It's simply that one situation occurs in the real world every so often, and the other rarely, if at all.
A better critique of the RC position given by josephine - if killing for a good purpose is ever lawful, it can only be as a 'lesser evil' option. In which case, abortion to save one life is better than not aborting and letting two lives be lost.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Thank you, Justinian. That's been bothering me throughout this conversation -- the idea that one can choose only the good. The comments earlier in the thread that the soldier in a just war killing the soldiers on the other side is doing something that is morally good, or the police officer killing the guy threatening the patrons in the convenience store is doing something morally good, are nonsense.
Killing another human being is evil. It's never, ever, ever good. It's not good for soldiers to kill other soldiers. It's not good for cops to kill perpetrators. Any killing of another human being -- even killing in self-defense, even killing by accident -- is evil. It's evil because every human being, however innocent or guilty, was made by God as a living icon. Each human being is of such value to God that God chose to become incarnate, to suffer, to die, and to be raised on the third day for the sake of that one single person. If we love God, we cannot ever say that killing someone who is infinitely precious to him is a good thing.
Rather, the only thing we can say is that sometimes this evil thing is worse than that evil thing, and we do the best we can by choosing the lesser evil. We sometimes choose to do evil so that a greater evil can be prevented.
To say that a soldier in a just war is doing good is crazy -- war is evil. The only way to fight a just war, it seems to me, is with the full recognition that every death -- not just the deaths of noncombatants, but every death inflicted by the war, that all harm caused by the war, is evil. But there are times where the harm caused by not fighting the war would be greater than the harm of fighting it, that the deaths would be more numerous by not having the war than by having it. Then you choose to do the lesser evil, in order to prevent the greater evil.
In the case of a pregnancy where the doctors believe that both the mother and the baby both likely die if the pregnancy is not terminated, there isn't a good choice. Letting them both die is not a good choice. Taking the life of the baby to allow the mother to live is not a good choice. But you have to choose one or the other. And it's no good arguing that, in letting them both die, you aren't doing anything. If you saw someone bleeding profusely, and you sat and watched them bleed to death, when it was in your power to save them, you're as guilty of their death as if you killed them directly. Sins of omission are still sins.
We live in a fallen world. It's messy and difficult, and sometimes all our choices are evil. We pray, and do the best we can, and ask God to be merciful, because he is good and loves mankind.
I will agree that the death of any person is a bad thing - a thing that is the result of human evil - a thing caused in the end by the Fall in Eden. But although killing is the result of evil, from a Christian perspective I refuse to say that the person carrying out the killing is always in the wrong. God Himself (if you accept the scriptures as having any historic truth) both killed and ordered His servants to kill, in both war and legal executions. When we slay an enemy, we should mourn him, we should love him and entrust his soul to the God who also loves him, and we should regret that the sin of ourselves and the world made it needful that he must die. But - in just cases only, obviously - we should not say we sinned in the act of killing.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
When we slay an enemy, we should mourn him, we should love him and entrust his soul to the God who also loves him, and we should regret that the sin of ourselves and the world made it needful that he must die. But - in just cases only, obviously - we should not say we sinned in the act of killing.
I think we have to say exactly that.
Perhaps, if we kill someone, it may be that we can say that what we did was just. But, as Christians, we know that justice is not enough. We are not called to be just. We are called to be holy.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But - in just cases only, obviously - we should not say we sinned in the act of killing.
I think we have to say exactly that.
Perhaps, if we kill someone, it may be that we can say that what we did was just. But, as Christians, we know that justice is not enough. We are not called to be just. We are called to be holy.
I find it pretty hard to take such a divergent tack from Judaism, the progenitors of Christianity. If they didn't have extreme issue with abortion or justified killing (as they defined it), it takes pretty strong evidence, which I'm not sure is there, to dismiss the OT.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
They didn't have much of a problem with genocide, either.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Perhaps, if we kill someone, it may be that we can say that what we did was just. But, as Christians, we know that justice is not enough. We are not called to be just. We are called to be holy.
I find it pretty hard to take such a divergent tack from Judaism, the progenitors of Christianity. If they didn't have extreme issue with abortion or justified killing (as they defined it), it takes pretty strong evidence, which I'm not sure is there, to dismiss the OT. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I'd say that Matthew chapter 5 is enough evidence that we are called to more than justice. It ends thus:
quote:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
I suppose life would be easier if you simply said that anything that is just is also good. But in telling us to give up an eye for an eye, our Lord made it clear that's not the case. As Christians, we are called to do better than that.
But life is complicated, and the world is fallen, and sometimes we can't find an option that allows us to do what is truly good in all respects. It would be truly good in all respects for the cop to save the store clerks and patrons, and to stop the gunman without killing him, and to get him whatever help he needs to come to repentance and a truly amended life. But that's beyond the power of a cop, who has to do something right now to minimize the evil that is about to be done, given the powers that he has, and the choices that he sees before him. It might turn out that the gun isn't loaded, or it's a toy, and the patrons weren't ever in any real danger or maybe it's a real gun, but if the cop could see the future, he would know that it's going to misfire on its next shot. He can't know any of that, though, so he can't act on the knowledge and skills and resources that he has, to do the best he can in the circumstances he finds himself in. The best he can do might not rise to the level of perfect, but it's the best he can do.
Likewise in the case of the abortion when the mother's life is at risk. It would be truly good to save both the mother and the baby. It might be that if the doctors did nothing, as some have suggested, there would be a miracle, and both mother and baby would be saved. But the doctors can't know that, and they have to do the best they can based on what they do know, and that powers they do have, and the circumstances they find themselves in. If they don't have the choice of saving both the mother and the child, if that way isn't open to them, then the only thing they can do is choose the way that results in the lesser evil.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
But - in just cases only, obviously - we should not say we sinned in the act of killing.
I think we have to say exactly that.
What does "sin" mean here - given that it appears that sometimes it might be a moral duty to kill to avoid an even greater evil? I know that we protestants sometimes assert that it is impossible to life sinlessly, but that is because we are often too weak to do what is right, not because we think that there are situations where every available option is a sin. (Also, I thought that was one issue on which the Orthodox took a clearly contrary position - that sin is not a necessary fact of human life - which would imply that there ought to be a possible sinless resolution to any dilemma).
Do you mean that killing, even if morally permitted or required, is so evil as to leave a sort of moral pollution that has to be dealt with?
Or that repentance is the only proper and humane response to having taken a human life in any circumstances?
Or that a killer, even when acting from the best motives, generally shares in the culpability of the broken world which makes killing sometimes necessary?
Or something else?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Do you mean that killing, even if morally permitted or required, is so evil as to leave a sort of moral pollution that has to be dealt with?
Now this thread has been relegated, I wasn't going to comment any further, but something has just occurred to me which I think is quite interesting, even if no one else agrees with me.
Under the Torah, death, irrespective of cause and including situations that would be morally unavoidable, causes pollution. That must be mitigated by ritual measures. So also do various other events. Nocturnal emissions is an example.
This is of course, as is usual in the Torah, a question of physical contamination, not moral contamination.
Nevertheless, perhaps the Torah is onto something here? Perhaps there are exposures to moral pollution that might need some sort of spiritual cleansing or repair, even when one is not fully morally guilty.
Or perhaps, even if this is not invariably necessary, there are situations where the people effected might need the reassurance that some sort of formal cleansing would give.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Under the Torah, death, irrespective of cause and including situations that would be morally unavoidable, causes pollution. That must be mitigated by ritual measures. So also do various other events. Nocturnal emissions is an example.
This is of course, as is usual in the Torah, a question of physical contamination, not moral contamination.
Nevertheless, perhaps the Torah is onto something here? Perhaps there are exposures to moral pollution that might need some sort of spiritual cleansing or repair, even when one is not fully morally guilty.
Or perhaps, even if this is not invariably necessary, there are situations where the people effected might need the reassurance that some sort of formal cleansing would give.
Not exactly what you are talking about, but maybe in a sense it is: police who have to kill someone, railroad engineers who run over someone, these days (I'm told) in our culture are offered the help of a psychologist. That's recognition that no one feels good about killing another human being even in the line of duty (police) or accidental and due entirely to another's fault (railroad engineer.)
I don't know about nocturnal emissions ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, but the idea of a "cleansing ritual" to help restore the sanity, normal functioning, of a person who was forced into doing something we instinctive try to avoid, makes sense.
When people ask if I could kill in self-defense or in defense of another, my reaction is yes: shoot, then vomit, then the nightmares. The fact that it's instinctively abhorrent behavior is not reason to say "no situation can ever justify it," only to strongly hope you never have to.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Not exactly what you are talking about
Belle, I think that is fairly close to what I'm talking about. Thank you.
Perhaps even counselling is a modern secular replacement for the sort of rituals past generations may have used. If people no longer believe in, or are no longer attuned to, the efficacy of a ceremony, perhaps talking about ones feelings, or being told one ought to and going through the motions, helps do something similar.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Bumping this thread because of an administrative coda:
quote:
Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery
By AMANDA LEE MYERS
Associated Press
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman's pregnancy to save her life.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center - recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices - violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld," Olmsted said at a news conference announcing the decision. "The mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph's medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed."
Linda Hunt, president of St. Joseph's, said doctors performed a necessary procedure on a patient who was getting worse by the minute and was in imminent danger of death.
"If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case," Hunt said. "Morally, ethically, and legally, we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save."
Now you may be thinking that the Catholic Church is endangering lives by crippling a whole hospital over the treatment of a single patient, but fret not!
quote:
St. Joseph's does not receive direct funding from the church, but in addition to losing its Catholic endorsement, the 697-bed hospital will no longer be able to celebrate Mass and must remove the Blessed Sacrament from its chapel.
The Catholic Church didn't contribute to treatment of patients anyway, so there's no real tangible harm from them pulling their seal of approval.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
except that the RC church has withdrawn its visble support from people who may want solace/counsel in their time of need from that church.
Which may be less of a sin than the medical procedure may be (according to their teaching) but is still in conflict with the role for the church declared by Jesus.
"We're going to take our ball and go away, and then you'll be sorry" isn't particularly edifying when stated by adults.
But we had that discussion a year or so ago in relation to the 9-y.o. pregnant with twins in Brazil, and the positions are still entrenched, so there's little point in going on about it.
I'm just rather sad that the RCs would prefer to kill the mother as well, rather than the baby (who would die anyway). But I suppose women are disposable objects, not real people.
Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on
:
Meanwhile, though, I wonder what's become of Sr. (Can't recall her first name) McBride, the administrator who got ex-communicated.
This whole affair is, ISTM, a black eye for a church in no need of any further black eyes; it certainly doesn't leave an impression of care, compassion, or concern for humankind on the part of the church.
I wonder if this gets Bishop Olmsted elevated to Cardinal?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Does this mean they won't have a Catholic chaplain? Lots of hospitals that aren't officially endorsed by the RCC and don't have the Blessed Sacrament hanging around in their chapels still have Catholic chaplains.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does this mean they won't have a Catholic chaplain? Lots of hospitals that aren't officially endorsed by the RCC and don't have the Blessed Sacrament hanging around in their chapels still have Catholic chaplains.
According to the article (which has apparently moved here):
quote:
[Hospital president Linda] Hunt said the hospital will comply with Olmsted's decision but it will continue to operate under Catholic guidelines.
"We will continue in the Catholic heritage through words and deeds," she said. "We have removed the Blessed Sacrament from our tabernacle, we will have no Masses, but priests will see patients. We are still a hospital."
So apparently this Catholic priests will still be on site for counseling, etc., but won't be holding services.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
This hospital will be able to do more for it's Catholic patients now - it will be able to save their lives without having to worry about a grandstanding Bishop getting in their way. Too bad they had to lose a good nun.
When the Bishop talks about "equal dignity of both lives" it's clear that "equality" means the mother losing her life as well as the baby if saving her own life meant an abortion.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm just rather sad that the RCs would prefer to kill the mother as well, rather than the baby (who would die anyway). But I suppose women are disposable objects, not real people.
I wonder if this may be connected with the fact that the whole shebang is run 100% by people who will never know what it's like to be parents?
Surely, if this were their daughter they'd want her life saved if it were possible?
It gets to me that they call the feotus an 11 week old baby - it isn't.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
I wonder how Bishop Olmsted thought an 11-week-old "baby" would survive outside the womb, if he really thought that the lives of both could be preserved.
But something tells me he was far more interested in his own rhetoric than in the medical facts of the situation.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery in addition to losing its Catholic endorsement, the 697-bed hospital will no longer be able to celebrate Mass and must remove the Blessed Sacrament from its chapel.
Great - so the RCC is effectively excommunicating the patients - how very pastoral.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Apparently, the New York Times agrees with the majority opinion here.
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Bishop Olmstead did the right thing: according to him we have lost 50 million children since Roe vs. Wade. Did you lot know that the protagonist in that case is a mother who never actually did kill her unborn baby? Google it, please!
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Bishop Olmstead did the right thing: according to him we have lost 50 million children since Roe vs. Wade. Did you lot know that the protagonist in that case is a mother who never actually did kill her unborn baby? Google it, please!
Children? What happened? Were they struck by lightning in the playground?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
(I'm posting this here because it is the most recently active abortion thread.)
Roman Catholic teaching on abortion is one thing. Defending an action in civil court is apparently something else entirely:
quote:
But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.
As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses."
In malpractice case, Catholic hospital argues fetuses aren’t people
So, is it a disgustingly self-interested double standard? Or is the legal team just doing everything they can to defend a client, like any lawyer should, and the client doesn't necessarily agree with the argument used on their behalf?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Mousethief has given it its own thread - so maybe it could move there?
cheers,
Louise
[ 24. January 2013, 23:32: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Done, and thanks for pointing the thread out (it was started a few minutes after my post.) Cheers!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0