Abortion hypothetical

[PilgrimToChrist]

The problem here is also equating fully developed adults as equal to a non-viable fetus. The Church isn't even certain that the fetus has a soul, whereas the adult does.

Wow. What Church is that? The fetus grows and moves -- ergo, it has a soul. What kind of soul? Is it a rat or a dog or a tree? No, it's a human being. It may not be as fully developed as an adult, that is, some of its faculties may be blocked, but it's still as human as me or you.

St. Thomas accepted the Aristotelian idea that ensoulment occurs at some point after conception -- when movement can first be felt -- but science has shown that this is not true -- as soon as the sperm hits the egg, it starts dividing and growing.

But even if ensoulment did after a certain period of time (say, 40 days for males and 90 days for females), it would still be a sin against nature because you are interrupting the natural process of grave matter (the life of a human being is grave matter).

When you know the end result is the same, and you're merely going around the situation in order to satisfy the dogma, it is a tap dance.

The logical conclusion then is to deny that the act is always illicit if it has evil effects, not to say that the act is always (or even sometimes) licit. This would be the thinking of those who deny that NFP can be licit. They say that avoiding having children is always illicit, even for grave reason. So logically, if you are saying Double-Effect doesn't apply (or denying the Principle of Double-Effect altogeter), you should be saying that it is always illicit to do something which will result in the death of the child.

In the case of the mother, you know that if you remove the placenta, it will kill the fetus, however, you're not directly attacking the fetus.

It doesn't matter, if what you are doing is going to cause the death of the fetus, its the same as doing the abortion in the first place.

Only if it is the placenta which is causing the problem in the first place. With an ectopic pregnancy, it is the swollen tube; with acute uterine cancer, it is the uterus. If the placenta was somehow harming the mother, such as what was claimed in this case, then it would be licit to remove it but that's not what they did.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That is very much similar to what a very orthodox "old school" priest said to me after my brother in law died, who did receive the last rites before his death.

He was not getting the traditional Catholic funeral rite and I was upset about that and the priest said, that after death, these thins are just for the family's comfort, and not for the deceased. These things have no effect on his salvation. Just to pray for his soul and what was important was the last rites which he did receive.

This may be off-topic but the prayers in the New Roman Rite in a Funeral or Requiem Mass are much weaker. This is also evidenced externally by the fact that many times they will use white vestments and bleached candles instead of black vestments and unbleached candles. If you read the prayers, you can be sure that you definitely want a traditional Funeral Mass.

If it's a young child that dies, then it is a votive Mass for the family's comfort (and white vestments/bleached candles are used) -- called a "Mass of the Angels" -- rather than a Requiem Mass because the child, who has not yet committed a sin, is in either Heaven or Limbo and not in Purgatory. But a Requiem Mass is directed towards the soul in Purgatory and while he will get to Heaven eventually, the more prayers for his soul the better.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Alright, kids, straight from the mouth of my moral theology prof who was appointed to his university position by my bishop -

it would indeed be necessary in this situation to allow the mother and child to die.

I just asked him in class, as we are talking about the principle of double effect.

 

[carmelsnowcone]

What about the other children she would have had if you had let the mother live? Are they just out of luck?

 

[Gwendolyn]

What about the other children she would have had if you had let the mother live? Are they just out of luck?

Other children she already had, who were living at the time of the procedure, you mean? Because hypothetical children who do not yet exist are not a factor.

 

[Davidnic]

What about the other children she would have had if you had let the mother live? Are they just out of luck?

The principle of double effect works on the logic that if something (a direct abortion) is evil you can not do it even if you do it for a good reason.

So you can not kill someone who would die anyway even if that saves or makes life subjectively better for multiple people because each life has infinite worth and an innocent non-aggressor has done nothing that would require equal or deadly force.

So it would be the murder of an innocent to save a life or improve quality.

It would be no different from if you had a bunch of people starving and you killed one against their will so everyone else could live.

Hypothetical children are not considered since we have no idea if there are or are not any. Even if there were, we can not take an innocent life to achieve good.

 

[Basil the Great]

The situation presented in this scenario is most difficult indeed and it would be even more difficult if the mother had two or three other children to raise and if her husband had either died or deserted her.

 

[Davidnic]

Alright, kids, straight from the mouth of my moral theology prof who was appointed to his university position by my bishop -

it would indeed be necessary in this situation to allow the mother and child to die.

I just asked him in class, as we are talking about the principle of double effect.

While doing everything possible to save both of course. That's a given, but around here anymore, sadly, it needs to be stated.

 

[carmelsnowcone]

Hypothetical children are not considered since we have no idea if thereare or are not any. Even if there were, we can not take an innocent life to achieve good.

Right you can't take an innocent life to...uh not really save the baby...sustain? maybe sustain the baby for a little while...

yeah

Hypothetically speaking if this baby's time on earth was so valuble to god then why did he allow/give the mother the heart problem in the first place?

And hypothetical doesn't count? Thats what a fetus is a poteintial human being being kept alive by its mothers body. We also have no idea if they will make it or how they turn out.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Alright, kids, straight from the mouth of my moral theology prof who was appointed to his university position by my bishop -

it would indeed be necessary in this situation to allow the mother and child to die.

I just asked him in class, as we are talking about the principle of double effect.

I am not a doctor and I don't know the details of the case in question but I would have to agree. If there's nothing we can do, there's nothing we can doand we have to let nature take its course and pray for the health of both the mother and child. If they die, we at least will see them in the next life.

Not everything that can be done to obtain the desired end is moral to do. Certain things can never be done for any reason and the direct and intentional killing of an innocent person (murder) is one of those things.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

What about the other children she would have had if you had let the mother live? Are they just out of luck?

Children are irreplacable -- you can't kill one of your kids based on the fact you could just have more later. That's kid of creepy weird, like "Shutter Island", sorry.

 

[Davidnic]

Right you can't take an innocent life to...uh not really save the baby...sustain? maybe sustain the baby for a little while...

yeah

Hypothetically speaking if this baby's time on earth was so valuble to god then why did he allow/give the mother the heart problem in the first place?

And hypothetical doesn't count? Thats what a fetus is a poteintial human being being kept alive by its mothers body. We also have no idea if they will make it or how they turn out.

No the fetus is a human being, fetus is a stage of human development. Just like child, teenager, adult or senior.

Unless you can say when they become a human they are possessed of a human nature from the moment of conception. A fetus is simply one of the earliest stages of human development. Still a person.

Unless there is some kind of evidence that a fetus is not a person it is a fetal human...still a human and a person.

A person does not become a person when viable..otherwise a person on life support who we know will be better in months and off the machines is not human while on them. That makes no sense. No rational argument would suggest that a person is a person only when delivered. The distance of a few feet does not make a human a human. Their human nature does. And when is nature conferred if not at the moment of biological existence?

Humanity is not dependent upon expressed qualities such as viability, two legs or ability to speak. If so, many people deformed or injured would not be human. Humanity is having a human nature. Human DNA in a living being from human generative material...no matter what stage of development. A potential human is not a fetus but a sperm and an egg. Once conception happens there is a person. If not then...when?

A fetal human is a human, just like a baby, teen....ect.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The situation presented in this scenario is most difficult indeed and it would be even more difficult if the mother had two or three other children to raise and if her husband had either died or deserted her.

It's unfortunate that things happen. A single mom can get i a car accident and leave her children orphans. Yes, horrible things happen in his world. Our duty is to avoid commiting evil and to make the world a better place. Killing a child doesn't help the problem, it exacerbates it. Our first duty is to save oursoul. Our second duty is to save as many other people as we can. By commiting murder, we damn our soul and those involved. Earthly well-being is so far below this that the two aren't even comparable. A person has a right to live but that right cannot conflict with another innocent person's right to live because that would conflict with God's Rights, which are absolute.

It is better that the world die in agony than for someone to commit one venial sin. Foster care is not a pretty thing but it's not worse than murder.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Neither -- most moralists say you can remove the Fallopian tube.

This is where the Principle of Double-Effect comes into play. You remove the fallopian tube, which is not an evil act in and of itself. The good and intended end is the health of the mother. The bad and unfortunate side-effect is that the child will die and that it will lessen your ability to reproduce (though we do have two ovaries/tubes). It is the removal of the fallopian tube and not the death of the child that is intended to effect the good end -- the health of the mother.

This is different than having an abortion or sterilization because the intention is good and the act (excising a portion of the fallopian tube) is not intrinsically evil but is contingent upon the circumstances.

There has been some work in transplanting the embryo from the fallopian tube into the uterus and there have been cases of ectopic pregnancies being carried to term. But until the science is to the point where we can get the child where he's supposed to be, there is no choice but to just cut out the fallopian tube and let him die (which is different than directly killing him).

I hope science gets that ironed out.

Which is the same thing. Inducing a pre-viable woman to give birth is an abortion. Abortum refers to a premature birth, even a miscarriage is technically an "spontaneous abortion". When we refer to abortion in this thread, we are referring to abortions caused by man. Inducing a woman prior to the point of viability is murdering the child.



If he or she has been dead for a while, no, we don't baptize dead people because their souls are long gone. But if the child dies during the birth or shortly after, sure. You can baptize up to an hour after apparent death because we don't actually know when the soul leaves the body, since there are residual functions which continue even after pulmonary failure.

.

I had my baby [who i miscarried] - baptized - and it was hours after my babies heart stopped beating that they finally came to take my baby out of me.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Right you can't take an innocent life to...uh not really save the baby...sustain? maybe sustain the baby for a little while...

yeah

You can't commit murder for any reason whatsoever, it's an intrinsically disordered act and thus there can be no justifications.

Hypothetically speaking if this baby's time on earth was so valuble to god then why did he allow/give the mother the heart problem in the first place?

We live in a broken world where bad things happen. God allows eil things to happen (such as disease) in order to bring a greater good out of it. But we cannot cause evil things. The brakes might go out on your car today causing you to plow into a group of kids getting out of school. That's a horrible thing. But there isa difference between that and me cutting the brake lines on your car or you playing Death Rae 2000 with the school kids. Tragedies happen but we cannot be the cause of them.

It is unfortunate that this woman had this medical problem but killing her child is not an acceptible solution. If there is nothing we can do to help them then there i nothing we can do to help them, that's life, everyone dies. That doesn't mean it's okay to murder people.

And hypothetical doesn't count? Thats what a fetus is a poteintial human being being kept alive by its mothers body. We also have no idea if they will make it or how they turn out.

So why are unborn children only "hypothetical"? My sister is pregnant right now and I've felt him kick and she gets woken up by him playing in the wee hours. Something more than a hypothesis is in there...

 

[Antisock]

Alright, my hunch was that moral theology would dictate that both must die.

God can do anything He wants.

You can't put Him in a box with theology.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I hope science gets that ironed out.

Some day. There are always amazing medical advances.

I had my baby [who i miscarried] - baptized - and it was hours after my babies heart stopped beating that they finally came to take my baby out of me.

One hour wasn't a hard and fast rule. IIRC, Fr. Ripperger (professor of dogmatic and moral theology at the FSSP seminary in the US) said a person should be "dead" for at least three hours before organs can be harvested. Like I said, we don't really know how long the soul hangs around. What you did certainly can't hurt. I was just saying you can't baptize a miscarried child after they've been dead a week, since it's too late. Of course, it may turn out that unbaptized infants go to Heaven instead of Limbo, Limbo is logical but not dogmatic. You did what you could and that's what's important. I'm sure you will see your little one some day.

I posted the hymn for the feast of the Holy innocents on my facebook on that day. I love the image of the infant martyrs playing with their palms and crowns under the altar. Children are precious to God.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

God can do anything He wants.

You can't put Him in a box with theology.

Or science if you chooses to do so but one can also understand him better via both. a vague saying is no substitute for a point.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Re: fallopian tubes

Actually, we also covered this today in class - you cannot remove the tube unless the tube has already ruptured and is haemorrhaging. Removing the tube when everything is fine and dandy is considered a direct abortion.

If anyone wants the break down of double effect for these two scenarios, I can write them out later.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Delivering the child would be killing it, that's what you seem to be turning a blind eye to.

Jim

No killing the child is killing it delivering is delivering. That is pretty simple.
Delivering or doing anything with the intent to kill even if such action didn't kill would not be killing but it would be as morally wrong as killing as the person posses the intent to kill.

doing something with the intention to save a life that endangers another even with a reasonable certitude of that eventual death falls under the category of unintended consequence. One must try to avoid such unintended consequences if one can do so with out bringing about other untintended consequence that are just as bad or worse.

Given that in the situation presented it is assumed that some one will die one way or the other. one can not avoid an unintended evil whether by action or in action. This frees one to do something that may have similar unintended evil consequences, but it does not free one to do something that is itself evil.

That's been church law since forever (to use the colloquial).

As to baptism of preborn infants. It is done. I had a pastor who had a case like this roughly five years ago. What the church doesn't do is baptize dead people. Your thinking of mormons maybe. All the church may choose to baptise if she is uncertain if the soul has left the body. (mostly dead )