 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
»
|
Ship of Fools
»
» Oblivion
»
Hospital administrator, a nun, excommunicated for consenting to abortion (Page 3)
|
|
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hospital administrator, a nun, excommunicated for consenting to abortion
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
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 ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) to Sr McBride.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And once again the RCC shows its institutional contempt for women. Jesus.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
oh ffs, sake Dumpling, shhh! you embarrass us all - this is CLEARLY a case where the principle of *double effect* applies- sheesh
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
No, Mousethief -- the point isn't that two deaths trump one.
It's worse than that: consistency trumps morality.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I suppose Jesuitical understanding can differentiate between this and "just war" where taking human life is okay to achieve a different end?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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)?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So the RCC doesn't understand the "least evil of the available options"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
