Abortion hypothetical

[JourneyToPeace]

I agree, but if you treat the mother and labor induces or it causes a miscarriage, that is unintended.

The crux is, is there any case or said scenario where having to abort at 11 weeks or mom will die at 11 weeks, exists?

The proper way IMO, not being a doctor mind you, is to just go as far as you can where the baby as some kind of chance to survive.

Not having read every post in this thread.... ectopic pregnancy comes immediately to mind as perhaps the ONE situation where you need to end a pregnancy because with the medical technology we have today, there's currently no way for the baby to EVER live, and the bigger the baby grows, the unsafer it is to a mother's health, and death becomes a certainty for each of them if the pregnancy continues.

Now, personally, if it were me... if I had a baby growing in, say, my fallopian tube rather than where it needed to be growing, I couldn't end his or her life with harsh chemicals. I'd rather take out the entire tube so it would indirectly end it, rather than having it be an attack on his or her life. Maybe that just seems like a semantic difference, but it comes down to your intention.

Ideally, I pray that in the future we'll have the ability to somehow safely move an attached, growing baby when he or she is growing in the wrong place. Until then, we have to do what we have to do, even though any mother I can think of would hate to have to do it.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I agree, but if you treat the mother and labor induces or it causes a miscarriage, that is unintended.

If it is a side-effect. Inducing labor pre-viability (abortion) can't be the solution. But if you are say, giving the mom chemotherapy for acute cancer and it happens to unfortunately induce a miscarriage, that is unintended. But if the solution to the medical problem is to induce a miscarriage (prior to the age of viability, an abortion) that is illicit.

The evil and unintended effect cannot be the direct cause of the good and intended effect:

And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just.

The crux is, is there any case or said scenario where having to abort at 11 weeks or mom will die at 11 weeks, exists?

That is what was claimed in the Phoenix case. I am not a doctor so I can't tell you the merits of the case, I trust they ascertained the problem and a possible solution (albeit an illicit one) correctly.

The proper way IMO, not being a doctor mind you, is to just go as far as you can where the baby as some kind of chance to survive.

As long as it's post-viability.

How early you push it has to be proportionate to how much there is a danger of losing the mother. If the mother is on her deathbed, yes, you could pull him out at say, 23 or maybe even 22 weeks. But at 11 weeks, it's murder because there is no chance the baby will make it.

You just have to think about it in a non-pregnancy situation. How much risk do you put your children in every day? You drive them in the car -- even though you could crash and you all could die. You let them walk to school -- even though they could get abducted. We judge risks on a daily basis and do what it is we have to do.

On "Good Morning America" yesterday there was a couple who got a speeding ticket rushing to the hospital for their baby to be born. They were going more than 100 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. So when they got to the hospital, there was an officer waiting there for them. They're fighting the ticket because if he pleads guilty (or is found guilty), he will lose his license for reckless endangerment -- and rightly so! What's the point in putting your life and the lives of your wife and soon-to-be-born son, as well as everyone else on the road, in grave danger just to get to the hospital 5 minutes earlier? That's not proportionate. If he had been going 5 or 10 miles an hour over and an officer stopped him, he probably would have gotten off with a warning to drive more carefully since the officer could see he was rushing to the hospital. That might have been proportionate but 50 miles over is not.

So in the case of the pregnancy, I believe earlier that the Church account inducing labor at 21 weeks or earlier is considered an abortion. Even at 23 weeks, you're only looking at a 20-30% chance of survival. At 24 weeks, there is a 50% chance. In what circumstances would you be willing to put your child in a situation where there is a 90% chance they will die?

Perhaps if you are trapped in a burning building and you throw your child to the streets below in the hopes that someone will catch him -- because if he stays any longer, he will surely die. But you can't throw him because you figure it's better for him to hit the sidewalk than to be burned alive nor could you throw your child out the window if the building is not on fire. You could throw him out the window if it is impossible to both carry him and get out of the building at the same time -- provided there is at least some reasonable chance he might survive.

You could induce pregnancy (throw the child out the window) if there is some reasonable chance the child will survive (i.e. post-viability, at least 21 weeks) and there is a proportionate reason to do so (the building is on fire and the firemen can't get to you). You can't induce pregnancy in the case of "fetal anomalies incompatible with life" (figuring it's better for him to hit the sidewalk now than to be burned alive later). Nor can you induce, even post-viability, if there is not a grave reason to do so (you can't throw your child out the window if the building is not on fire). You could induce pregnancy if not inducing would lead to the death of the mother (and without a post-/peri-mortem C-section, the death of the child as well) provided that there is a reasonable chance the child will survive.

If this case had taken place when the child was 26 weeks along instead of only 11, inducing labor would have been a licit response but at 11 weeks, it's just murder.

 

[Davidnic]

No, thats not what I'm struggling with.

If there is a shot at getting to 20 weeks, by all means, do it.

But the doctors claim is that they had to act immediately.

Not being on the case and not being a doctor, I can't say they were wrong in their prognosis.

Jim

And given what we know we can not say they were right. And other doctors have been very dubious that what they described could be right.

So that leaves us unable to say there were not option for bringing to term. The issue at base is that sister McBride was educated and employed to know what the Church allowed and she advised someone that something was moral that the Church says was not.

In this, look at what Sister McBride has said. Nothing. She has not spoken against the Bishop or for the hospital. Her excommunication was lifted in two days and she was reassigned.

But unless I missed it she never publicly said anything on the matter. And it was this incident that brought to light that the hospital has been taking part in what the Church considers unethical practices through their associations for over a year and purposely hiding it from the Bishop.

So...were those in place responsible for oversight and making sure the USCCB ethics code was followed doing their job? While voluntary sterilizations and other practices were taking place.

Given that environment....I just do not trust what the doctors have put out about the case when other doctors are confused about how it could be as they describe.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Not having read every post in this thread.... ectopic pregnancy comes immediately to mind as perhaps the ONE situation where you need to end a pregnancy because with the medical technology we have today, there's currently no way for the baby to EVER live, and the bigger the baby grows, the unsafer it is to a mother's health, and death becomes a certainty for each of them if the pregnancy continues.

Now, personally, if it were me... if I had a baby growing in, say, my fallopian tube rather than where it needed to be growing, I couldn't end his or her life with harsh chemicals. I'd rather take out the entire tube so it would indirectly end it, rather than having it be an attack on his or her life. Maybe that just seems like a semantic difference, but it comes down to your intention.

Ideally, I pray that in the future we'll have the ability to somehow safely move an attached, growing baby when he or she is growing in the wrong place. Until then, we have to do what we have to do, even though any mother I can think of would hate to have to do it.

Correct.

In many cases (half -- according to Wikipedia), the body itself will naturally cause the miscarriage and therefore the child's death is simply an act of nature, like any other miscarriage, disease or natural disaster -- it's nobody's fault.

But if it doesn't resolve itself, you have a very dangerous problem of having your tube burst. If you were walking around not pregnant and for whatever reason, your fallopian tube burst you would go have the damaged portion removed. If you are pregnant and your fallopian tube bursts, you can still have the damaged portion removed even if there is a child inside of it. The death of the child is an unintended side-effect proportionate to the primary, good effect -- saving the life of the mother.

But you cannot have a chemical abortion (the most common secular solution), nor can you have the child scraped out with a scalpel (the second most common secular solution), nor can you have the tube excised before it bursts (no pre-emptive strikes).

There have been a few recent cases where a child has been conceived outside of the womb (non-tubal ectopic pregnancies) and been carried to term (born by C-section, of course), with both the mother and child surviving. Wikipedia lists some.

Transplanting the child from the tube into the uterus would be the ideal solution, I don't know if they've had a successful one yet. Science keeps progressing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here's a good article on the subject;



From Intuition to Moral Principle




Examining the Phoenix case in light of church tradition
Kevin O'Rourke


It was interesting to learn from the article, that at one time, organ transplants to save another person's life, were considered illicit by Catholic Theologians and confimed by Pope Pius XII. However, in 1956,
that view began to change.


Also, this part of the article, seems to say what I've been trying to say;


What if Both Mother and Child Will Die?

There seems to be an intuition that terminating a pregnancy that exacerbates pulmonary tension to such an extent that both mother and child will die unless action is taken to remove the source of danger would result in an indirect rather than a direct abortion. Is there a moral principle to support this intuition?
The eminent Catholic philosopher Germain Grisez has written that in some circumstances what seems to be a direct abortion may be performed if both mother and infant would die if nothing is done. In The Way of the Lord Jesus, Grisez lists four conditions that would justify removing a nonviable infant from the womb: 1) some pathology threatens the lives of both a pregnant woman and her child; 2) it is not safe to wait, for waiting will result in the death of both; 3) there is no way to save the child; 4) an operation that can save the mother’s life will result in the child’s death. Grisez uses as an example of a licit application of these conditions the case of craniotomy: “In such cases the baby’s death need not be included in the proposal to remove the child with an oversized head from the birth canal. The baby cannot remain where it is without ending in both the mother’s and the baby’s death.”

While Grisez’s opinion is not without merit, it does not seem to have carried the day. It has not been cited widely in papal statements or standard textbooks as an example of indirect abortion. Perhaps it is because the example he considers when applying the four principles, a craniotomy, does not occur frequently in the United States. Advanced imaging and caesarian-section deliveries enable physicians to circumvent the danger that might occur if the infant has an oversized head. At any rate, Grisez’s opinion cannot be rejected out of hand.


America Magazine - From Intuition to Moral Principle

 

[Gwendolyn]

I am back again to break down the principle of double effect to illustrate why specifically these abortion cases are considered direct as opposed to indirect abortion.

The Principle of Double Effect has four qualifications that MUST be met:
1. The Means choosen must not be intrinsically evil. The means must be good or indifferent in themselves.


2. The Structure of the Act must be such that the evil effect is not what causes the good effect.

3. The Intention is directed at a good effect(s), and solely toward the good effect(s).

4. The good effect produced is proportionate to the evil effect.

If one (or more) of the requirements are not met, the action/harm is "direct."

If all of the requirements are met, the action/harm is "indirect."

So, let's look at the medical cases we have been talking about in this thread.
Case 1: Ectopic Pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube). When the tube ruptures there is a lethal hemorrhaging threat to the mother. Treatment: Microscopically go up into the fallopian tube, detach the embryo and remove it.

Means: removal of non-viable embryo from fallopian tube.
Good effect: removal of lethal threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo.

​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect is what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good effect). NOT MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the embryo (evil effect) (nothing else is being done). The action is designed to remove the embryo. NOT MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET

​

Having failed to meet all of the requirements of the principle of double effect, the killing of the unborn in this situation is classified as "direct."

The direct killing of innocent fetus cannot be justified.

Conclusion: One must allow the tragedy of two deaths rather than commit one murder.

The Magisterium has, and continues to state that a "Direct abortion as either an end or as a means [e.g., to saving the life of the mother] is morally wrong."

Case 2: Pregnancy overstressing mother's physical capacity. A woman who has reduced organ function (heart, liver, kidneys) faces a lethal threat if the added burden of the pregnancy causes organ failure.

Treatment/Means: Removal of the embryo/fetus.
Good effect: removal of lethal threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo/fetus.

​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the embryo/fetus (evil effect) is what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (GE). NOT MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the embryo/fetus (evil effect) (nothing else is being done). The action is designed to remove the embryo. NOT MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET

​

Having failed to meet all of the requirements of the principle of double effect, the killing of the unborn in this situation is classified as "direct."

Conclusion: One must allow the tragedy of two deaths rather than commit one murder.

Pt II coming.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Ectopic Pregnancy Case 2: Ectopic Pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube). When the tube ruptures there is a lethal hemorrhaging threat to the mother. Treatment: Remove the section of the fallopian tube in which the embryo has implanted. Re-attach the severed ends of the fallopian tube.

Means: Remove an inflamed, over-extended section of the fallopian tube containing a non-viable embryo.
Good effect: removal of lethal hemorrhaging threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo in the tube.

​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect) is not what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good efffect). The removal of the ruptured tube is what removes the threat. MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the ruptured tube. The action is designed to remove the tube. MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET

​

Having met all the requirements of Double Effect, this is classified as an "indirect abortion."

Although the child is aborted as a side-effect of what this action was designed to do (remove the ruptured tube), the action is morally justified even though this effect is foreseen and the action is voluntary.


Hope this helps a little...

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ectopic Pregnancy Case 2: Ectopic Pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube). When the tube ruptures there is a lethal hemorrhaging threat to the mother. Treatment: Remove the section of the fallopian tube in which the embryo has implanted. Re-attach the severed ends of the fallopian tube.

Means: Remove an inflamed, over-extended section of the fallopian tube containing a non-viable embryo.
Good effect: removal of lethal hemorrhaging threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo in the tube.


​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect) is not what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good efffect). The removal of the ruptured tube is what removes the threat. MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the ruptured tube. The action is designed to remove the tube. MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET


​

Having met all the requirements of Double Effect, this is classified as an "indirect abortion."

Although the child is aborted as a side-effect of what this action was designed to do (remove the ruptured tube), the action is morally justified even though this effect is foreseen and the action is voluntary.


Hope this helps a little...

Thankyou for these very informative post!!

I'm guessing, but this post may have been the principle which Sr McBride used in determining that the case she had to reveiw, was an indirect abortion.

I can see how it could've been applied and why we have a barrage of differing opinions on this particular case.



Jim

 

[Davidnic]

I am back again to break down the principle of double effect to illustrate why specifically these abortion cases are considered direct as opposed to indirect abortion.

The Principle of Double Effect has four qualifications that MUST be met:
1. The Means choosen must not be intrinsically evil. The means must be good or indifferent in themselves.


2. The Structure of the Act must be such that the evil effect is not what causes the good effect.

3. The Intention is directed at a good effect(s), and solely toward the good effect(s).

4. The good effect produced is proportionate to the evil effect.

If one (or more) of the requirements are not met, the action/harm is "direct."

If all of the requirements are met, the action/harm is "indirect."

So, let's look at the medical cases we have been talking about in this thread.
Case 1: Ectopic Pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube). When the tube ruptures there is a lethal hemorrhaging threat to the mother. Treatment: Microscopically go up into the fallopian tube, detach the embryo and remove it.

Means: removal of non-viable embryo from fallopian tube.
Good effect: removal of lethal threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo.

​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect is what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good effect). NOT MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the embryo (evil effect) (nothing else is being done). The action is designed to remove the embryo. NOT MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET

​

Having failed to meet all of the requirements of the principle of double effect, the killing of the unborn in this situation is classified as "direct."

The direct killing of innocent fetus cannot be justified.

Conclusion: One must allow the tragedy of two deaths rather than commit one murder.

The Magisterium has, and continues to state that a "Direct abortion as either an end or as a means [e.g., to saving the life of the mother] is morally wrong."

Case 2: Pregnancy overstressing mother's physical capacity. A woman who has reduced organ function (heart, liver, kidneys) faces a lethal threat if the added burden of the pregnancy causes organ failure.

Treatment/Means: Removal of the embryo/fetus.
Good effect: removal of lethal threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo/fetus.

​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the embryo/fetus (evil effect) is what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (GE). NOT MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the embryo/fetus (evil effect) (nothing else is being done). The action is designed to remove the embryo. NOT MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET

​

Having failed to meet all of the requirements of the principle of double effect, the killing of the unborn in this situation is classified as "direct."

Conclusion: One must allow the tragedy of two deaths rather than commit one murder.

Pt II coming.

Ectopic Pregnancy Case 2: Ectopic Pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube). When the tube ruptures there is a lethal hemorrhaging threat to the mother. Treatment: Remove the section of the fallopian tube in which the embryo has implanted. Re-attach the severed ends of the fallopian tube.

Means: Remove an inflamed, over-extended section of the fallopian tube containing a non-viable embryo.
Good effect: removal of lethal hemorrhaging threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo in the tube.

​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect) is not what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good efffect). The removal of the ruptured tube is what removes the threat. MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the ruptured tube. The action is designed to remove the tube. MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET

​

Having met all the requirements of Double Effect, this is classified as an "indirect abortion."

Although the child is aborted as a side-effect of what this action was designed to do (remove the ruptured tube), the action is morally justified even though this effect is foreseen and the action is voluntary.


Hope this helps a little...

Pretty much what I learned.

 

[JoabAnias]

Ectopic Pregnancy Case 2: Ectopic Pregnancy (implantation in fallopian tube). When the tube ruptures there is a lethal hemorrhaging threat to the mother. Treatment: Remove the section of the fallopian tube in which the embryo has implanted. Re-attach the severed ends of the fallopian tube.

Means: Remove an inflamed, over-extended section of the fallopian tube containing a non-viable embryo.
Good effect: removal of lethal hemorrhaging threat to mother
Evil effect: removal of non-viable embryo in the tube.


​

Requirements of the Principle of Double Effect:

1. Surgery is not an intrinsically evil action. MET

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect) is not what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good efffect). The removal of the ruptured tube is what removes the threat. MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the ruptured tube. The action is designed to remove the tube. MET

4. A life saved is proportionate to a life lost. MET


​

Having met all the requirements of Double Effect, this is classified as an "indirect abortion."

Although the child is aborted as a side-effect of what this action was designed to do (remove the ruptured tube), the action is morally justified even though this effect is foreseen and the action is voluntary.


Hope this helps a little...

Can I ask a question?

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

I know the Church doesn't define it that way, which is why I have a problem with how the Church defines it.

Then perhaps you should remove that little red cross icon. being sentimentally catholic isn't really being catholic. but better yet instead of removing the icon why don't you just do what the church commands.

 

[JourneyToPeace]

Then perhaps you should remove that little red cross icon. being sentimentally catholic isn't really being catholic. but better yet instead of removing the icon why don't you just do what the church commands.

You know, I think you'll probably meet VERY few Catholics who have NO questions, concerns, struggles or disagreements when it comes to their faith. We all wrestle with ideas and concepts, and it's better to be honest about that, and discuss it, and admit it... rather than just bury and silence it.

Suggesting that someone cease to identify as Catholic isn't helpful.... and most Catholics DO what the Church commands, even if we struggle with it. I can't think of any Church law that says "you must agree with every single thing and dogma before you identify as Catholic". If that was the case, I think we'd have a very, VERY small Church.

We're required to obey and acquiesce to the Church with the understanding that we might not fully agree with the Church because we may not fully understand the Church..... but we're not required to 'just agree', as far as I know.

 

[Davidnic]

Then perhaps you should remove that little red cross icon. being sentimentally catholic isn't really being catholic. but better yet instead of removing the icon why don't you just do what the church commands.

Jim has already said he and his wife would do as the Church instructs but he struggles with how it is defined.

He is not asked to not struggle but to do as the Church would have him do if it was his call.

Assent does not mean there is no struggle. Cardinal Dulles sums it up best:

Dissent is when someone denies the truth of what is taught and openly contradicts it. Dissent is sometimes confused with other responses such as wishing the Magisterium taught otherwise or failing to understand why the Magisterium taught as it did. Dissent is not the same as disappointment or incomprehension which are entirely compatible with assent. Nor is it the same as doubt, though doubt is likewise a failure to give full assent. Depending on the circumstance doubt may be voluntary or involuntary, culpable or non-culpable.

Avery Cardinal Dulles
Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith
​

Side note I do recommend the book that comes from for an understanding of how the Magisterium works and issues of assent and dissent.

Where Jim is, and I am not trying to put words in his mouth, is:

He wishes it were different and does not get why, with how he understands and feels on compassion and the rest of how the Church views life issues...why it is the way it is. But if he were in that situation he would follow the Church. But he can not really call someone who does differently against life because he sees why they would do other than he would.

Now personally I see the consistency on issues of life in this. Jim feels there is a contradiction. If I understand him in this.

None of that stops him form being Catholic. No matter how much he and I have disagreed on points in this thread (and more than one other on this issue) I don't see any dissent...just struggle.

 

[JoabAnias]

Pretty much what I learned.

Something about the analogy begs questions for me.

 

[Veritas]

I looked this so-called condition up and there really wasn't much. There are heart conditions that happen during pregnancy but are not caused by it. Some heart problems are pre-existing and only become an issue in pregnancy because of changes in blood pressure and blood volume.

Here is what I did find regarding a potentially fatal heart problem that crops up LATE in pregnancy and is extremely rare:

http://www.suite101.com/content/heart-scare-for-pregnant-women-a48268

If this is the condition that is being referred to in the OP, it happens late in the pregnancy (usually the last month) and for up to 5 months post-partum, so there is NO reason to consider abortion. This is simply a case of either early, induced labor or going to term. There's nothing that indicates abortion would actually prevent the condition from resulting in fatal heart failure.

 

[Davidnic]

Something about the analogy begs questions for me.

Like which ones? I agree, double effect reasoning gets kind of twisty.

 

[Simon_Templar]

As I understand it, the only acceptable reason for an individual to take a life is in defense of life.

So self defense or defense of another from some who is trying to kill you or them.

some people think that includes abortion, however, it doesn't. In order for this to be a valid defense, the person who is being killed must themselves have the intent to kill.
You can't rightly kill someone who is about to accidentally kill another, or you.

 

[JoabAnias]

Like which ones?

These:

2. Structure: The removal of the fetus (evil effect) is not what causes the removal of the threat to the mother (good efffect). The removal of the ruptured tube is what removes the threat. MET

3. The (immediate) intention is to remove the ruptured tube. The action is designed to remove the tube. MET

#2 neglects or seems indifferent to the fact that the removal of the tube may also knowingly remove the baby. It seems potentially permissive of an intrinsic evil to effect a good. Neither does it take into consideration alternative medicinal remedies. I would ask what are the options.

In #3 what intent there is or isn't to preserve the life of the baby is not addressed. Its still a vague value judgment on one life over another.

I understand that killing the baby isn't the willful intent but the indifference to the baby falls into the category of "the things I fail to do". I would ask why is there indifference toward the baby.

I agree, double effect reasoning gets kind of twisty.

Thats a problem with the limitations of human understanding as I see it, when what is needed is trust in God. Not vainly seeking loopholes. Bioethics or moral theology does not have to be this complex and falls of weakness under the extreme weight of circumstance do not need to be justified with such rational. They require repentance for healing.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Well, if this thread is still kicking around next week, we can discuss proportionalism, lol. That is next week's topic in moral theology for me.

 

[Davidnic]

Well, if this thread is still kicking around next week, we can discuss proportionalism, lol. That is next week's topic in moral theology for me.

That will be an interesting week since someone will likely find out they are accidentally a consequentialist. Since many moralists hold that real proportionalism is incompatible with Catholic morality that discussion always creates interesting class talk.