- Feb 5, 2002
- 166,683
- 56,293
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
David, you didn't have to use a hypothetical.
I just finished reading "The Terrible Hours," which was about the submarine Squalus, which sank in 250 feet of water off the coast of New England, in 1939.
Long story, but as the engine room began to rapidly fill up with water, the one engineer who managed to make it to the next hatch, held on as long as he could to allow other men who further back to make it. However, the water was filling so fast, that had he not closed and sealed the hatch, the control room would've filled and all the men aboard would've died. He had to make a fast decision, those men's lives, or the rest of the crew. He closed and sealed the door, and 26 men who were aft in the sub, drowned.
He lived with guilt all of his life, thinking that perhaps he had no right to save himself and the rest of the crew, while the action he took, killed the other 26 men.
The same is similar in this case. If the hospital doesn't abort the pre-viable fetus, the woman will die as a result of heart failure.
If the woman were your daughter, you tell me that you wouldn't see the logic in the hospital's decision.
Jim
Side note Fantine...that is not a Church law; that is Dogma that is unchangeable under tenenda definitive. There is a vast difference. Church Law would be Canon Law and that can be changed. What you are referring to is not changeable because it is about the nature and matter of a Sacrament. So you are in error to refer to it as a Church Law that is changeable.
BTW, the "Double Effect," principle isn't fallible doctrine, and when Aquinas wrote it as a guideline, he wrote in the context of self-defense against and agressor.
The arguments using the double effect, treat the fetus as the aggressor, which is never the case.
Apply the double effect principle to all medical situations, isn't going to work, unless you're willing to let the mother die. With today's modern medical knowledge, a doctor would be charged with murder for letting a mother die, when he could've saved her,
by aborting a pre-viable fetus who had no chance of survival.
Jim
Jim,
In the case you cite his action was not to kill the men, but to perform an act that was neutral in its moral act...closing a door. The intent was to save the others on board. The act morally neutral.
In the case of an abortion the act is morally evil and can not be done so that good may come from it. So the situation you describe falls under double effect as able to be done. The act done to save lives was not...in itself morally evil. An abortion is.
If it was my daughter Jim, honestly...I would not see the logic in killing my grandchild or losing my child.
Even before we tried for children my wife and I addressed and planned for what we would do in this type of situation. It seemed best to know that before a crisis time.
I do not discount the horrible nature and toll of the questions were are debating. And I am not without a massive amount of compassion for those involved for several reasons.
The reason I am in this discussion is that a decision like this has had to be made in my family twice. Once with my mother and once with my grandmother. My mom chose to have us and although it meant her eventual death (although that death occurred ten years later and not immediate, it was a direct result) When my mothers younger sister was born the doctor came to my grandfather and said, "You have five minutes...do you want me to save your wife or your daughter?" He chose his wife.
So I have talked in depth on a personal family level with people who made the choices or were involved on both sides of this. And have seen the ramifications of both. In many ways it has been an issue present my entire life and when I studied moral theology it was an area of particular personal interest to me.
Now all that is neither here nor there in many ways, I only mentioned it for two reasons.
One (in response to your question), I wanted to explain where I am coming from when I say I have thought often of: "What if this happened to my wife or daughter?" And I do not see where killing anyone is necessary, but I am not going to personally judge the families in this, at the same time I will not validate an action that takes a life. But I am going to be disgusted (as I mentioned before) with ethics committees and the general medical attitude of "Risk management" in these situations that often treats the fetus as a lesser being and often misleads people and manipulates compassion into a decision.
And two, I wanted to explain why I take this kind of discussion of such personal importance. And, although we disagree, I want to thank you for having the discussion and raising your points in a civil manner (that can be rare on emotional issues). Although I am sure we will not bridge the gap between us on this, the conversation is worth having.
I think we need to state something directly: The words Zygote, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Child, Teenager, Adult, Middle age, Senior Citizen are stages of human development and at no point is the person not human. From the moment of conception a human nature is present. Living things do not become something other than what they are once their cellular life processes start. Viability is not a requirement for a human nature, it is a characteristic of a stage of human development. And lack of it does not make someone less human or disposable.
I am not saying you are saying otherwise Jim, just making sure that is directly stated.
So fetus or adult mother, both are persons and both are humans in the image of God.
David, sorry to hear about your mother.
However, if the situation were different, your wife and you are told, not only will the pregnancy cost your wife her life, but the child has no chance of making it through to viability. What do you choose?
This is what the case we're discussing was about.
It wasn't a case where the fetus would survive. It couldn't because the mother couldn't survive the pregnancy to get to viability.
Jim
David, sorry to hear about your mother.
However, if the situation were different, your wife and you are told, not only will the pregnancy cost your wife her life, but the child has no chance of making it through to viability. What do you choose?
This is what the case we're discussing was about.
It wasn't a case where the fetus would survive. It couldn't because the mother couldn't survive the pregnancy to get to viability.
Jim
and the point David as been making to you is there isn't a true case where not allowing the baby to remain and grow to a stage where it can be delivered is not an option.
You act like delivering a baby at 5 months instead of extracting it through dismemberment, gives the baby no chance and that's not true Jim. and it's not going to kill a women if she waits another 10 weeks.
and the point David as been making to you is there isn't a true case where not allowing the baby to remain and grow to a stage where it can be delivered is not an option.
You act like delivering a baby at 5 months instead of extracting it through dismemberment, gives the baby no chance and that's not true Jim. and it's not going to kill a women if she waits another 10 weeks.
Well, we have already addressed ectopic pregnancy, which is exactly this kind of case.
benedictaoo
No, David hasn't shown that. The fact is, the case we're talking about is
one of them.
You're assuming that the doctors had the option of waiting until viability.
According to them, they did not otherwise they would have.
And BTW, I have seen a baby born at 20 weeks as a result of induced labor. They don't dismember it, and the mother delivered it in tact, although it was dead.
Jim
spread some butter on her- she is toast
No. ectopic pregnancy is not. The surgery for that is not to intentionally kill the child.
If you can remove the out of place baby and replant it, then yo do that.
But if you can not replant it- you are not directly willfully, purposeful trying to kill it- an abortion- you are!
The plan of action with an ectopic pregnancy is not to go in and kill the baby- it is to remove it from where it is and hopefully be able to replant it. It is to save the baby, not kill it. sadly- rarely does a baby survive that.
the intent is not to abort, but to remove it and if you could or can put it where it belongs, you do.
It is not a situation where the surgery is to kill the baby.
Abortion is always that.
The women had an abortion- NOT a surgery to save her life... claiming that is, would be a lie if someone were to say that.
You can not kill the baby as the way to save the mother. You can't do it... it's. just. not. right.
Does that mean she is going to hell?
spread some butter on her- she is toast