Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Right. It goes to the intent. In this case, it's semantics that reflect a philosophy that goes back at least to Thomas Aquinas.
Dekeguy may know more, but I think it's the principle of double effect on a large scale, though I know there are specific considerations for whether a war is "just" or not.
Sometimes war is necessary to protect the innocent, defend freedom or fight evil. WWII makes a great example. One does not wage a just war with the intent of killing others, although that clearly will be an inevitable result. The intent is defending freedom/the innocent/"good."
|
So is the intent of this abortion. I think it's a contradiction still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
So the fact that the fetus is in the wrong place and that organ is removed means that mother gets to live. Yay for her! I wonder if they'd performed a hysterectomy on the women in the OP if this would be okay too?
I guess I still don't see the difference. In an ectopic pregnancy, the intent is still to terminate the pregnancy. The end result is it saves the mother's life. In the case we are discussing currently, the intent was to terminate the pregnancy. The end result is to save the mother's life. How are these different in any way? In both cases, the fetus is not viable to term. In both cases, terminating the pregnancy will save the life of the mother. In both cases, the pregnancy is terminated surgically. I think the church has just found a way to keep people happy since ectopics happen fairly commonly. Wouldn't want to stand by and let thousands of women die every year because we can't kill a nonviable fetus to save the life of a mother.
|
It goes back to those philosophical questions: Would you push 1 person in front of a train if you knew you would save 5 others? Would you save the 1 person if it would kill 5 others? Would you pull the switch and move the train down the track that would kill 1 person to save 5 others or let the 5 die? If they see the fetus as a human person, despite the fact that it MAY not live naturally, they cannot justify killing it, even to save the life of the mother. It's the difference between pushing someone in front of the tracks and letting the train hit someone.
Or similarly, would you pull someone onto a rowboat that you know will sink it and kill you? Would you push someone off the rowboat if you knew it would sink and kill you if you didn't? What if it weren't just you in the boat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by violetpretty
I still can't understand. If the choices are two lives lost or one life lost, the choice should be simple. What you DON'T do makes you responsible for two deaths.
|
It absolves them of responsibility because the deaths were, natural, god's will, whatever. They were going to happen. If you intervene, you're responsible for the intervention's effects. Allow an abortion = condoning murder. Disallowing abortion = she may die, if so that's better than murdering someone, and she dies without the stain of murder on her soul.
As I said, it's their perspective and I don't agree with it.
Hybrid Mode
