Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
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.
|
I don't disagree with where you end up. But from the Catholic Church's perspective, as I understand it (and I'm not Catholic), there is a difference.
In the ectopic pregnancy, the understanding is that the intent is not to terminate the pregnancy; termination of the pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect, but it's not the reason for the procedure. The intent is to save the mother's life.
Like I say, I think this line of reasoning can lead to tragic results. But the principle of double effect itself can be a useful tool and has been a useful tool for centuries. The rub comes in specific applications.
Threaded Mode
