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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverRoses
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.
|
Thanks, I think I get it now.
I always wondered about that scenario (if the pregnancy must be "sacrificed" [in a way] for the life of the mother). Focusing on intention puts everything into much clearer perspective. I don't mean as far as "which is morally right," but as far as a basis for personal choices.
Threaded Mode
