Reply to Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Trying to understand Catholic arguments for and against abortion"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think the interesting question for Catholic theologians are the edge cases. In a fire, do you save the 5 year old, or the 100 frozen embryos? If life begins the moment the sperm hits the egg, how do you explain twins that don’t split until day 6? Does the soul split in half, or were there two souls in one body?[b] If abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother, why[/b]? [/quote]
It’s not. Either both manage to live or both die.[/quote]

The Church says that medical procedures to save the life of the mother are licit as long as the death of the child is an unintended consequence and not the goal. So removing the septic uterus of a pregnant woman is permitted

"As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951)."[/quote]

ok … but the totally irrational part of this is a) why does saving the fetus matter if it can never live, eg ectopic? and b) why make a distinction between forms of medical care? removing the fallopian tube is ok; but using methotrexate to kill the embryo is not. Makes zero logical, moral, or intuitive sense. When I read stuff like this, my conclusion is that the Church’s actual interest is maintaining control through the imposition of rules, not actually helping humans navigate ethical dilemmas. [/quote]

What are you talking about? Saving a fetus that is ectopic? [/quote]

i’m talking about how Catholic doctrine on ectopic pregnancy considers the life of the ectopic pregnancy to be a factor to consider - that’s why they say removing the fallopian tube is ok (because you’re apparently not intending to kill the embryo) but a methotrexate injection is not ok. And in other scenarios where the fetus has no chance of life — like the fetus is inevitably dying and the mother has an infection— they won’t allow an abortion until the fetal heart stops, placing the woman at grave risk. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics