[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by Bardamu)
CCC 2271: Since the first century the Chirch has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willied either as an ends or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall bot kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

CCC 2272: Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical crime of excommunication to this crime against human life.

CCC 2274: Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo mist be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

The doctrine of double effect applies to a morally good act with evil consequences, as well as good (double effect, see?). Abortion is murder, therefore evil, and thus DDE is not applicable. It's good to see a more reasoned approach though.

My school has incorrectly catechised me then!

[Bardamu]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
My school has incorrectly catechised me then!

Possibly. It may be that they've simply been unclear and you've misinterpreted. If you'd like to know more, here's a good link that explains it well:

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56

If you look at the criterion supplied, this abortion met basically none of the criteria:
- Abortion is evil in itself
- The death of the twins is directly intended
- The good is brought about by evil means
- Two were killed for the sake of one.

I'd be happy to discuss the matter further if you have any questions or disagree with my interpretation of anything.



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[yawn]

(Original post by cptKernow)
Nice to see the Catholic church have updated their policies on child abuse...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...m-1640165.html

This is a resurrected story from March, 2009 which has been fully debated at that time on TSR.

The Church has the right to excommunicate those who act against their doctrines...and one of those doctrines is against the procurement of abortion not matter the circumstances, excepting the imminent danger to the mother of the continuing pregnancy. We also debated, back in 2009, the claims that the girl's life was in imminent danger due to the continuing pregnancy. It transpired that it was the opinion of her doctor that she may be in danger because of her physiological immaturity...not that she was definitely in danger. As such, the abortion is considered akin to killing the unborn children and merits excommunication. If her life was in immediate danger, then the ending of the pregnancy would be acceptable since in cases of imminent danger to the lives of the mother and the unborn child/ren the mother's life takes precedence in both civil and church law.

Whilst these circumstances were abhorrent to all concerned, at least we can't say that the Church isn't consistent in its doctrinal adherence.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by Bardamu)
Without God, there is no morality.

Is what God commands good because he commands it, or does he command it because it is good?

In the second case clearly morality is not dependent on God.

In the first case, the only basis for the 'goodness' of his commands is his power to reward and punish, rather than any morality. In this situation he is just a tyrant. If goodness comes from power then any dictator can claim morality as easily as God, the only limit being the limits of their power.

[Goody2Shoes-x]

(Original post by yawn)
This is a resurrected story from March, 2009 which has been fully debated at that time on TSR.

The Church has the right to excommunicate those who act against their doctrines...and one of those doctrines is against the procurement of abortion not matter the circumstances. Besides, those who don't believe in God would have no reason to be concerned, surely?

Whilst these circumstances were abhorrent to all concerned, at least we can't say that the Church isn't consistent in its doctrinal adherence.

I see nobody has anwsered my original question - I thought Christians were all about forgiveness? Not that in my opinion, there was anything to forgive, but the Church clearly views abortion as forbidden, so going by the Church's view about wrongdoing.

[iSoftie]

(Original post by ckingalt)
I pride myself in being mostly mature and eloquent when presenting my opinions. However it this case the only response that seems appropriate is **** the Catholic Church and **** the Pope.

I mean I don't like this forum in this way: if I said "**** atheists" or "**** whatever else" I'd get negged and insulted at I'm not a catholic but show some respect.
Plus you got to consider how there's always been "dumb mistakes" such as miscarriages in law: nobody is perfect!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[yawn]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
I'm quite bemused by this whole situation, I have to say. If continuing the pregnancy was endangering the life of the mother, then under the CCC it is permissible to have an abortion, due to the doctrine of double effect (which I believe was instituted by St Thomas Aquinas). Clearly either some misinformation floating about or (more likely) some very distorted form of Catholicism being practised here

You are absolutely correct, TLG - despite the view of another poster following your post.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, an action involving a double effect may possibly be morally acceptable if all of the following four conditions are met:

That the negative effects are not sought, and all reasonable efforts are made to avoid them.
That the direct effect is positive.
That the negative effect is not made a means to obtain the positive effect.
That the positive effect is at least as important as the negative effect.

So, in attempting to prevent the imminent death of the mother, the unborn child's life is ended despite that not being the reason for the medical action.

The direct effect - ie the mother's life is saved - is positive.

One could argue that condition three is not met in such circumstances, but likewise, one could argue that the death of the unborn child is not a means to save the mother's life since the child might well have survived the medical procedure used to save the mother's life, depending on what it is that is actually causing her to be in imminent danger. There are several medical scenarios that could be used in this argument.

To argue that the unborn child's life should have taken precendence over the life of a mother who might very well have other children, or who might have recovered without causing the death of the unborn child, would appear to be without reasonable grounds.

[yawn]

(Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
I see nobody has anwsered my original question - I thought Christians were all about forgiveness? Not that in my opinion, there was anything to forgive, but the Church clearly views abortion as forbidden, so going by the Church's view about wrongdoing.

I'll try to answer your question here, but it will have to be seen in the context of both theological and scriptural terms.

Whilst it is God's prerogative alone to judge, Christ passed that authority onto the Church He instituted when He gave Peter the keys to His Church and told His apostles that what they forgave on earth (in His name) was forgiven in Heaven, and likewise, what was retained (or not forgiven) in His name was unforgiven in heaven.

It is left to the individual to make their peace with God and ask Him for His repentence if they are genuinely sorry for what they have done.

As for Christian forgiveness, we can only forgive those who have done wrong to us. We can't forgive those who have done wrong to others as it's not ours to forgive them.

[Bardamu]

(Original post by Раскольников)
Is what God commands good because he commands it, or does he command it because it is good?

In the second case clearly morality is not dependent on God.

In the first case, the only basis for the 'goodness' of his commands is his power to reward and punish, rather than any morality. In this situation he is just a tyrant. If goodness comes from power then any dictator can claim morality as easily as God, the only limit being the limits of their power.

There are several views within the Church. Probably the simplest is that it's a flawed question. God commands what is good because He is good. Goodness is derived from and defined by Him and His essence. Goodness is simply another name for the “nature” of God.

To work within the confines of the Euthyphro dilemma, as I'm sure to do otherwise would irritate you no end, it is good because God commands it. As the creator of the universe, He is in a position to write an objective morality into the fabric of reality. He alone can be a source. Without God, we have only men. Men cannot create an objective morality that exists independently of their minds (like subjective morality).

[Bardamu]

(Original post by yawn)
You are absolutely correct, TLG - despite the view of another poster following your post.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I, an action involving a double effect may possibly be morally acceptable if all of the following four conditions are met:

That the negative effects are not sought, and all reasonable efforts are made to avoid them.
That the direct effect is positive.
That the negative effect is not made a means to obtain the positive effect.
That the positive effect is at least as important as the negative effect.

So, in attempting to prevent the imminent death of the mother, the unborn child's life is ended despite that not being the reason for the medical action.

The direct effect - ie the mother's life is saved - is positive.

One could argue that condition three is not met in such circumstances, but likewise, one could argue that the death of the unborn child is not a means to save the mother's life since the child might well have survived the medical procedure used to save the mother's life, depending on what it is that is actually causing her to be in imminent danger. There are several medical scenarios that could be used in this argument.

To argue that the unborn child's life should have taken precendence over the life of a mother who might very well have other children, or who might have recovered without causing the death of the unborn child, would appear to be without reasonable grounds.

This argument could, and is being used to, justify murder.
You are using the abortion (killing) of unviable foetuses (foeti?) as a means to an (admittedly admirable) end.

CCC 2271: Abortion willed as an end or a means is gravely contrary tp the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion.

[py0alb]

Doesn't surprise me, nor should it surprise you. This is what Catholicism stands for, has always stood for, and always will stand for.

Brutally and repeatedly raping a 9 year old child is "not as serious" a crime as abortion, added a senior Cardinal.

[py0alb]

In the Catholic Church's defence, it would be rather hypocritical of them to excommunicate someone simply because they like to rape little children in their spare time.

[ckingalt]

(Original post by iSoftie)
I mean I don't like this forum in this way: if I said "**** atheists" or "**** whatever else" I'd get negged and insulted at I'm not a catholic but show some respect.
Plus you got to consider how there's always been "dumb mistakes" such as miscarriages in law: nobody is perfect!

My opinion is not a matter of one dumb mistake, and I did not say **** Catholics. I said **** the church. I base that sentiment on a long history harmful, self-serving policies from an institution that I consider to be morally, ethically, and often spiritually corrupt. If you feel that I have shown disrespect for a religion then you misunderstand. Walk through the slums of Rome on your way to the Vatican and then behold the opulence within. Then consider an institution that that will knowingly protect and enable a pedophile within its' ranks in the interest of preserving its' reputation. That same institution will abandon the mother of a rape victim in a display of self-indulgent arrogance. The Catholic Church and the Pope do not deserve my respect.

[yawn]

(Original post by Bardamu)
This argument could, and is being used to, justify murder.
You are using the abortion (killing) of unviable foetuses (foeti?) as a means to an (admittedly admirable) end.

CCC 2271: Abortion willed as an end or a means is gravely contrary tp the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion.

It would seem that you missed my caveat. In the event of a mother's life being endangered by some condition that would worsen and in fact, kill her (for example stroke, heart attack, respiratory failure, cancer) because of the added stress on her body of a co-existing pregnancy; then ending the pregnancy as a means of facilitating more aggressive treatment for the mother's condition is not willed as an end result, but rather is a consequence of that end result.

It's a bit like someone who is terminally ill and in great, uncontrollable pain. The administration of powerful opioids will assuage the pain, but in the doing so, that administration will also greatly speed the death of the patient. The intent was to allow the patient some comfort, not to kill them.

Incidentally, I do not sit on the fence when it comes to abortion. I am against abortion except in those extremely rare cases where the mother's life is in imminent danger if the pregnancy continues. In such cases, there is no need for an abortion law because society has always placed the well-being of the mother above the unborn child.

[Clare~Bear]

This is disgraceful. If the mother didn't allow the poor traumatised girl to have an abortion, I'd think she was worse and even neglectful of her daughters health and well-being.

[Bardamu]

(Original post by yawn)
It would seem that you missed my caveat. In the event of a mother's life being endangered by some condition that would worsen and in fact, kill her (for example stroke, heart attack, respiratory failure, cancer) because of the added stress on her body of a co-existing pregnancy; then ending the pregnancy as a means of facilitating more aggressive treatment for the mother's condition is not willed as an end result, but rather is a consequence of that end result.

It's a bit like someone who is terminally ill and in great, uncontrollable pain. The administration of powerful opioids will assuage the pain, but in the doing so, that administration will also greatly speed the death of the patient. The intent was to allow the patient some comfort, not to kill them.

Incidentally, I do not sit on the fence when it comes to abortion. U I am against abortion except in those extremely rare cases where the mother's life is in imminent danger if the pregnancy continues. In such cases, there is no need for an abortion law because society has always placed the well-being of the mother above the unborn child.

Using abortion to facilitate or as treatment constitutes an act in itself, and that end of that act is the death of the unborn child. If the abortion were indirect, an unavoidable but unintentional side effect of the treatment, then it could be defended by DDE.

I agree with your painkiller scenario. The patient's death is not the object of the treatment.

[yawn]

(Original post by Bardamu)
Using abortion to facilitate or as treatment constitutes an act in itself, and that end of that act is the death of the unborn child. If the abortion were indirect, an unavoidable but unintentional side effect of the treatment, then it could be defended by DDE.

I agree with your painkiller scenario. The patient's death is not the object of the treatment.

During the course of the mother's treatment, the result is the death of the unborn child in utero; ergo, an unavoidable but unintentional side effect of such treatment is defended by DDE.

Maintaining the pregancy whilst neglecting to treat the mother for her life-threatening condition would result in the death of the mother...and the unborn child. This could not be defended by DDE.

I haven't studied philosophy so am not acquainted with such scenarios from a philosophical point of view. It just seems to make sense to me that where the mother's life is in immediate danger unless she has the required treatment, the consideration of who to save has to be taken into account. Whatever the decision the unborn child would die regardless either because the pregnancy is terminated or because the mother dies and the unborn child is without means of all physiological support and dies also.

[Bardamu]

(Original post by yawn)
During the course of the mother's treatment, the result is the death of the unborn child in utero; ergo, an unavoidable but unintentional side effect of such treatment is defended by DDE.

Maintaining the pregancy whilst neglecting to treat the mother for her life-threatening condition would result in the death of the mother...and the unborn child. This could not be defended by DDE.

I haven't studied philosophy so am not acquainted with such scenarios from a philosophical point of view. It just seems to make sense to me that where the mother's life is in immediate danger unless she has the required treatment, the consideration of who to save has to be taken into account. Whatever the decision the unborn child would die regardless either because the pregnancy is terminated or because the mother dies and the unborn child is without means of all physiological support and dies also.

Yes, but that's different. Aborting the baby as a form of treatment is unacceptable. If the mother needs medicine of some form, it is not acceptable to abort the pregnancy and then administer the medicine. This is the first scenario that you described. DDE would defend the administration of the required medicine if it would save the mother's life, but result in the abortion of the pregnancy as a side effect. This is what I believe you are describing in the second paragraph.

[Alpharius]

The Catholic church strikes again...

Defending paedophiles, again, and punishing the victims. PR success.

[Bardamu]

(Original post by Alpharius)
The Catholic church strikes again...

Defending paedophiles, again, and punishing the victims. PR success.

Every part of that is wrong.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App