Abortion

Poll
12 votes (57.14%)
5 votes (23.8%)
2 votes (9.52%)
2 votes (9.52%)

21 members have voted

November 2nd, 2012 at 6:27:17 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
"random embyro" is probably the key word here. If it was the embryo of your own child then more people would let the house burn. Therefore we just imagine ourselves as the parents of that embryo and how much hope they have for their future with that unique person whom they have loved into being and many would save that child for them.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:07:14 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
If it was the embryo of your own child then more people would let the house burn.


Huh?

First, realistically, frozen embryos are not kept in homes.

Second, if it is your embryo, then you have a lot invested in it. Most obvious is the money. But there's much more. What a woman has to undergo in order to obtain several viable ova is grueling and takes up a lot of time. Then there's the fact that people who undergo the trouble, discomfort and expense of in-vitro procedures, really, really, really want to have children. Naturally such embryos are precious to them.

But the embryos remain embryos. No more human for all that than an embryo cruising down toward the uterine wall.

BTW, whoever voted against without exceptions, what about ectopic pregnancies? With the vast majority of such cases, the choices are either abortion or letting the woman and fetus die.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:25:31 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Well I have a friend who voted "against, without exceptions" and he would say this about ectopic pregnancies. In moral theology it is called the principle of double effect. What this means is that if you do something that has a secondary and unintedned consequence it is allowed. Meaning that if you have to perform a surgery for the mother and as an uninteded consequence the life of the child is lost the action can be morally allowed. Another example might help, if someone is in hospice care and in pain the giving of morphine may cause the person to die sooner, but the intended use of morphine is to alleviate the pain and the unintended and unavoidable consequence is that it may indeed shorthen their life.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:34:39 AM permalink
DocZZZ
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 0
Posts: 12
Quote: FrGamble
"random embyro" is probably the key word here. If it was the embryo of your own child then more people would let the house burn. Therefore we just imagine ourselves as the parents of that embryo and how much hope they have for their future with that unique person whom they have loved into being and many would save that child for them.


I'm asking you, FrGamble, a simple question. If YOUR house is burning, and the clinic housing ONE random embryo is burning, which do you save?
I know the answer to this question.... If YOUR house is burning, and the clinic housing one live baby is burning, which do you save?
I know you save the baby in the second scenario.
I believe you save your own house in the first scenario, but am awaiting your answer.......
Any others who are against abortion, do you save your own house or the random embryo?
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:39:36 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
Well I have a friend who voted "against, without exceptions" and he would say this about ectopic pregnancies. In moral theology it is called the principle of double effect. What this means is that if you do something that has a secondary and unintedned consequence it is allowed. Meaning that if you have to perform a surgery for the mother and as an uninteded consequence the life of the child is lost the action can be morally allowed.


There's nothing unintended about treatment in an ectopic pregnancy. The point is to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube where it implanted, in order to save the life of the mother. That's the intent, pure and simple. No unforeseen consequences, no maybes about it. The fetus is killing the mother. Either it gets removed or they both die.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:43:55 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
In regards to DocZZZ's question:
Ah ha, I don't have my own house and I don't have a lot of stuff. If the recotry burns down the Church has insurance and anything I have can be replaced. That little embryo represents the dreams and hopes of a couple who loves that little child and as Nareed has pointed out, has sacrificed a lot to have that little "peapod". Thinking about them and knowing there is no insurance that can replace a human life I run to the clinic to save the embryo. I must admit though that my answer is not totally satisfying to me on an emotional level. My feelings would have me run into my house and save what I can, my reason, logic, and will would have me run into the clinic.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 2nd, 2012 at 7:49:30 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Often the fallopian tube is removed or a section of it, this is the intent to save the life of the mother by removing NOT the baby but the tube or part of the tube where the baby has implanted. Of coruse the consequences of this are not unforeseen, namely the baby will die, but they are unavoidable and not intended. If there was some other way we would do it, but because there is not and you are dealing with proportional moral goods, namely the life of the mother and the life of the child, you can have the surgery to remove the affected part of the body without intending to remove the fetus at all.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:10:04 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 346
Posts: 12545
Quote: FrGamble
Often the fallopian tube is removed or a section of it, this is the intent to save the life of the mother by removing NOT the baby but the tube or part of the tube where the baby has implanted. Of coruse the consequences of this are not unforeseen, namely the baby will die, but they are unavoidable and not intended.


That's like saying amputating an arm or a leg to treat bone cancer intends only to remove the cancerous bone, not the limb the bone is in. That would be an evasion, since you must remove the limb in order to remove the bone. The same is true in an ectopic pregnancy: the intent is to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother. Whether or not the primary intent is different doesn't matter.

Look, sometimes an injury to a limb requires very delicate surgery to re-attach blood vessels, tendons and nerves in order to save the limb. But there is a limited window of opportunity. f the surgery goes well, all is good and the patient remains intact. If things go badly, the patient can die. That is an unforeseen consequence, or at least an unintended one. And that's true of other procedures, sometimes the exact risk of death is not known. As yet, no surgery is intended to kill the patient. But surgeries are intended to amputate limbs or abort fetuses.

If you're letting facts intrude in your morality, then let them all in and admit that the mother's life takes precedence at least in some rare situations.
Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:47:34 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
I think the difficult situation of an ectopic pregnancy makes it clear that the mother's life does take precedence, but it is not that the life of the unborn child is not valued, recognized, or considered as well. This is a case where there are two lives in jeopordy and you can only save one. As long as you don't intend to kill the child, or the mother for that matter, the act can be morally done. It sounds like you may be struggling to figure out why this language about intention and uninteded consequences is so important. It is to make sure we don't fall into the fallacy that you can do evil to accomplish good. You simply cannot purposefully and intentionally kill an innocent child or an innocent person even if it is to save the life of the mother or anyone else.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:05:59 AM permalink
WongBo
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1
Posts: 14
Theology and gynecology,
How many catholic priests and cardinals and popes have actually had a vagina?