Quote:
Originally Posted by dekeguy
============
As I understand it (and remember I am not a Theologian) the key is the intention. If the intention is to save life [the mother] and incidentally the child is lost, even if the loss is inevitable, but the intention is not to destroy life then this would be morally acceptable. So, if governed by the proper intention both situations would be tragic but morally sound. Again I must apply the caveat that my opinion does not carry Theological teaching authority. Domine non sum dignus.
If there are any RC Theologians reading this please chime in and make sure my understanding of the issue is sound.
Many thanks,
Peter
|
I'm not a theologian, however I do know a bit about Catholic NFP teachings. You are correct-btw, it is all about intent.
To give a real-life example- If a woman has an ectopic pregancy (where the fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus), then this is a life threatening condition. The way to save the woman's life is to remove the fallopian tube- however to remove it will kill the developing baby. But since the objective is to save the life NOT kill the baby, it is acceptable.
Another example would be amniocentisis. In a small percentage of cases, an amnio can lead to a miscarriage (spontanious abortion). The objective of the amnio IS NOT abortion- in fact most amnios are performed to help diagnose health conditions with the baby- some which can be corrected in utero.
Threaded Mode
