Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can a Christian answer me...

JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2010 10:23:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
About this concept that abortion is categorically evil. In light of the recent news story concerning Sister Margret (the Times article - http://www.nytimes.com...), who was excommunicated for aborting her fetus in a circumstance wherein it was highly likely that continued pregnancy would kill her (and presumably the fetus as well, considering it was at 3 months).

So my question to the Christians that hold this position, and not solely the Catholics, by the way - is whether or not you can defend this notion that abortion is always wrong. Let me present a hypothetical...

Just a note, too - I am assuming that Christians are generally committed to the moral proposition that saving lives is good, and that all other things equal, saving more lives is better...

Ok, so the hypothetical is this: We have a female patient, pregnant, and she has some debilitating medical condition that is 100% sure to kill both her AND the fetus unless the fetus is aborted. To me, the obvious conclusion is that we should abort the fetus and save the mother.

Now let me first head off the nonsense objection that this shouldn't be answered because no such 100% certainty exists in the medical field... then we turn to THIS hypothetical: I am a psychopath, and I have a pregnant captive whose fetus I detest for some reason or another. I also happen to be a medical expert capable of performing abortions, and unless she agrees to an abortion, I will just kill both of them. So now an answer must be provided in light of certainty.

Second, I'd like to head off the notion that we should let nature take its course... of course Christians cannot be committed to this idea as well, as there would be absolutely no Christian support for the medical profession, no Christian doctors, no Christian patients in hospitals...

Third, the notion that it is God's plan for them both to die is completely incompatible with the competing, equally viable option that it is God's plan for the fetus to die and the woman to live. Nobody has access to what God's plan is, and thus, it is completely inadmissible as a "solution" to this quandary.

So the question stands... is it moral or immoral to abort a fetus to save the mother's life when to do otherwise would kill both? Is it immoral to kill one to prevent two from dying?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:59:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 10:23:19 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
About this concept that abortion is categorically evil. In light of the recent news story concerning Sister Margret (the Times article - http://www.nytimes.com...), who was excommunicated for aborting her fetus in a circumstance wherein it was highly likely that continued pregnancy would kill her (and presumably the fetus as well, considering it was at 3 months).

So my question to the Christians that hold this position, and not solely the Catholics, by the way - is whether or not you can defend this notion that abortion is always wrong. Let me present a hypothetical...

Just a note, too - I am assuming that Christians are generally committed to the moral proposition that saving lives is good, and that all other things equal, saving more lives is better...

Ok, so the hypothetical is this: We have a female patient, pregnant, and she has some debilitating medical condition that is 100% sure to kill both her AND the fetus unless the fetus is aborted. To me, the obvious conclusion is that we should abort the fetus and save the mother.

Now let me first head off the nonsense objection that this shouldn't be answered because no such 100% certainty exists in the medical field... then we turn to THIS hypothetical: I am a psychopath, and I have a pregnant captive whose fetus I detest for some reason or another. I also happen to be a medical expert capable of performing abortions, and unless she agrees to an abortion, I will just kill both of them. So now an answer must be provided in light of certainty.

Second, I'd like to head off the notion that we should let nature take its course... of course Christians cannot be committed to this idea as well, as there would be absolutely no Christian support for the medical profession, no Christian doctors, no Christian patients in hospitals...

Third, the notion that it is God's plan for them both to die is completely incompatible with the competing, equally viable option that it is God's plan for the fetus to die and the woman to live. Nobody has access to what God's plan is, and thus, it is completely inadmissible as a "solution" to this quandary.

So the question stands... is it moral or immoral to abort a fetus to save the mother's life when to do otherwise would kill both? Is it immoral to kill one to prevent two from dying?

Okay, so here is my attempt at a Catholic response to this:
Moral dilemmas are difficult, and there should be no joy in any Christian when they are being determined, but that is one of the functions of religion.

In these dilemmas the answer is almost always found in the logic of the greater good. Keeping in mind that the sanctity of life is one of the highest values for a Christian when going into the dilemma.

There are two areas that are being hit on here, one is at the macro level, what is best for society, and one is at the micro level, what is best for this situation. In the greater good exercise the macro will supersede the micro as society is of greater value than the individual.

However, at the micro level the unborn child is of greater value than the mother as well. In human nature a mother will most always be willing to sacrifice her life for that of the child, therefore it is more natural for a mother to be sacrificed. Furthermore, in life values, the older one is the less value their life is. If you had to decide between the life of a 2 year old and that of an 88 year old, you would choose the 2 year old - same concept in choosing between the mother and the unborn.

At a greater more macro level, by making exceptions to abortion is weakening the value of the sanctity of life in our society. If there was someone who was a horrifying tax cheat, but did so to feed hungry children, and improve the lives of the hungry children, would the government still prosecute the tax cheat? Yes, because the precedent that would develop would be detrimental to society. By making exceptions to the stance in abortion is to make exceptions to or the devaluing of the sanctity of life value.

I think that's how the church would respond.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 2:07:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 10:23:19 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
About this concept that abortion is categorically evil. In light of the recent news story concerning Sister Margret (the Times article - http://www.nytimes.com...), who was excommunicated for aborting her fetus in a circumstance wherein it was highly likely that continued pregnancy would kill her (and presumably the fetus as well, considering it was at 3 months).

So my question to the Christians that hold this position, and not solely the Catholics, by the way - is whether or not you can defend this notion that abortion is always wrong. Let me present a hypothetical...

Just a note, too - I am assuming that Christians are generally committed to the moral proposition that saving lives is good, and that all other things equal, saving more lives is better...

Ok, so the hypothetical is this: We have a female patient, pregnant, and she has some debilitating medical condition that is 100% sure to kill both her AND the fetus unless the fetus is aborted. To me, the obvious conclusion is that we should abort the fetus and save the mother.

Now let me first head off the nonsense objection that this shouldn't be answered because no such 100% certainty exists in the medical field... then we turn to THIS hypothetical: I am a psychopath, and I have a pregnant captive whose fetus I detest for some reason or another. I also happen to be a medical expert capable of performing abortions, and unless she agrees to an abortion, I will just kill both of them. So now an answer must be provided in light of certainty.

Second, I'd like to head off the notion that we should let nature take its course... of course Christians cannot be committed to this idea as well, as there would be absolutely no Christian support for the medical profession, no Christian doctors, no Christian patients in hospitals...

Third, the notion that it is God's plan for them both to die is completely incompatible with the competing, equally viable option that it is God's plan for the fetus to die and the woman to live. Nobody has access to what God's plan is, and thus, it is completely inadmissible as a "solution" to this quandary.

So the question stands... is it moral or immoral to abort a fetus to save the mother's life when to do otherwise would kill both? Is it immoral to kill one to prevent two from dying?

No Christian I've EVER come across has EVER advocated that abortion is always wrong. EVER. It's generally thought to be permissible to abort a fetus to save a mother's life.

See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:00:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 2:07:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No Christian I've EVER come across has EVER advocated that abortion is always wrong. EVER. It's generally thought to be permissible to abort a fetus to save a mother's life.

Abortion is always wrong. ALWAYS.

See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

"Though shalt not kill" - The Sixth Commandment

"Do not do evil that good may come." - Pauline principle
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:05:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/29/2010 2:07:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No Christian I've EVER come across has EVER advocated that abortion is always wrong. EVER. It's generally thought to be permissible to abort a fetus to save a mother's life.

Abortion is always wrong. ALWAYS.

See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

"Though shalt not kill" - The Sixth Commandment

"Do not do evil that good may come." - Pauline principle

Translating the sixth commandment as 'though shalt not kill' leads to a whole stewpot of problems.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:10:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.

You are a monster.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.

So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:12:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:10:03 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.

You are a monster.

It's a natural abortion... so wtf.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:12:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

"Though shalt not murder" - The Sixth Commandment

"Do not do evil that good may come." - Pauline principle

Fixed.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:13:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.

So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.

I'm Undecided.

I'm ok if it's at the cost of the mother's life.[Unchristian stance]
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:15:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:13:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.

So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.

I'm Undecided.

I'm ok if it's at the cost of the mother's life.[Unchristian stance]

Yea, that's fine too. I just don't like how many people use abortion as a form of birth control. If you want casual sex then use protection and/or birth control such as the pill.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:15:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:12:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

"Though shalt not murder" - The Sixth Commandment

"Do not do evil that good may come." - Pauline principle

Fixed.

Ratsakh -- illegal murder
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:17:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:15:09 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:13:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:08:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:02:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Ok, to all Christians here: Are you even opposed to abortion if a woman is raped? I'm personally pro-life, but even I'll allow raped women to get abortions.

Pray for a miscarriage.

So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.

I'm Undecided.

I'm ok if it's at the cost of the mother's life.[Unchristian stance]

Yea, that's fine too. I just don't like how many people use abortion as a form of birth control. If you want casual sex then use protection and/or birth control such as the pill.
Sometimes that doesn't work out. That's when abortions come in.

I'm ok if it's at the cost of the mother's life.[Unchristian stance]

Wait, abortion is ok if abortion comes at the cost of the mother's life? That's pretty f***ed up dude (read sentence carefully).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:19:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:17:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm ok if it's at the cost of the mother's life.[Unchristian stance]

Wait, abortion is ok if abortion comes at the cost of the mother's life? That's pretty f***ed up dude (read sentence carefully).

I noticed but couldn't be asked to go back from the review page.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:19:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:19:04 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:17:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm ok if it's at the cost of the mother's life.[Unchristian stance]

Wait, abortion is ok if abortion comes at the cost of the mother's life? That's pretty f***ed up dude (read sentence carefully).

I noticed but I couldn't be asked to go back from the review page.

Clicked add post then read the review.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:44:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.

A person's a person, no matter how he was conceived.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 4:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:44:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.

A person's a person, no matter how he was conceived.

I just noticed that I assumed that he was a he when it is just as likely for it to be a she.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:11:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 6:59:43 AM, innomen wrote:

This seems to be the only cogent response by a Christian that actually addresses the issue. We will forgive Reasoning's response and just assume he is stupid or can't read and give him another chance...

There are two areas that are being hit on here, one is at the macro level, what is best for society, and one is at the micro level, what is best for this situation. In the greater good exercise the macro will supersede the micro as society is of greater value than the individual.

Ok... but this seems a little inconsistent with what you have below... The mother is presumably a productive member of society, or at least we can stipulate that she is for the purposes of the hypothetical... the child would need to be cared for, educated, etc... in effect being a drain on the community resources. Assuming it will later offset that drain is a dangerous path...

However, at the micro level the unborn child is of greater value than the mother as well. In human nature a mother will most always be willing to sacrifice her life for that of the child

Hold on... many species eat their young. Hamsters especially - I once had a hamster who birthed 16 in one litter (o.0) and ate about half of them because she couldn't feed all of them and had been so weakened by giving birth...

therefore it is more natural for a mother to be sacrificed.

I think we've done away with this notion...

Furthermore, in life values, the older one is the less value their life is.

I think this is completely unwarranted. This would mean it would be morally BETTER to abort an 8-month term baby than to abort the same baby at 4 months.

If you had to decide between the life of a 2 year old and that of an 88 year old, you would choose the 2 year old - same concept in choosing between the mother and the unborn.

Noooo... not quite. The 2 year old is already out and about and such, whereas the 88 year old is close to death. The mother is not close to death, and he 3 month fetus is not even a viable organism... not the same concept at all.

By making exceptions to the stance in abortion is to make exceptions to or the devaluing of the sanctity of life value.

But it seems that in this circumstance, but NOT aborting the baby and in effect condemning TWO to death instead of ONE, does that not destroy the sanctity of life even more???

I think that's how the church would respond.

I really do appreciate your attempt at this... I had been puzzled by this dilemma as a Catholic myself before I left the church many years ago. Let's add something to the hypothetical situation...

Suppose we cannot remove the baby in a safe procedure. Suppose the medical complication is such that if we leave the baby in the mother, she will die, and dump toxins in h blood that kills the baby or something like that. If we try to remove the baby, it will kill them both... The only one of the two it is possible to save is the mother, and the only way to save her is to abort the baby. Or we can formulate that same situation in any variant of the psychopath thought experiment you want... but same question.

We cannot save the baby - only the mother, and only by abortion. What now?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:14:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:00:35 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/29/2010 2:07:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No Christian I've EVER come across has EVER advocated that abortion is always wrong. EVER. It's generally thought to be permissible to abort a fetus to save a mother's life.

Abortion is always wrong. ALWAYS.

Heh... Meet Reasoning.

See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

Well yes, that's exactly what this is... but we are talking about specifically willing a moral evil (from the Christian's standpoint)... so it would seem that this doctrine would have us do nothing and effectively kill two people...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:22:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 6:11:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 5/29/2010 6:59:43 AM, innomen wrote:

This seems to be the only cogent response by a Christian that actually addresses the issue. We will forgive Reasoning's response and just assume he is stupid or can't read and give him another chance...

Ad hominem.

I think that's how the church would respond.

I really do appreciate your attempt at this... I had been puzzled by this dilemma as a Catholic myself before I left the church many years ago. Let's add something to the hypothetical situation...

Suppose we cannot remove the baby in a safe procedure. Suppose the medical complication is such that if we leave the baby in the mother, she will die, and dump toxins in h blood that kills the baby or something like that. If we try to remove the baby, it will kill them both... The only one of the two it is possible to save is the mother, and the only way to save her is to abort the baby. Or we can formulate that same situation in any variant of the psychopath thought experiment you want... but same question.

We cannot save the baby - only the mother, and only by abortion. What now?

Abortion would be wrong.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:27:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2010 10:23:19 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
So the question stands... is it moral or immoral to abort a fetus to save the mother's life when to do otherwise would kill both?

Immoral.

Is it immoral to kill one to prevent two from dying?

Immoral. That is essentially the trolley problem.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:38:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 6:14:06 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
See: the Catholic doctrine of double effect.

Well yes, that's exactly what this is... but we are talking about specifically willing a moral evil (from the Christian's standpoint)... so it would seem that this doctrine would have us do nothing and effectively kill two people...

I think you're missing the point. I wouldn't be a moral evil to abort the fetus if the mother's life is in danger.

I think most Christians would agree that killing someone in self-defense is regrettable and probably should be avoided but wouldn't be a moral evil. The same thing applies here.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2010 6:53:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 6:38:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I think most Christians would agree that killing someone in self-defense is regrettable and probably should be avoided but wouldn't be a moral evil. The same thing applies here.

"Christian pacifism is the theological and ethical position that any form of violence is incompatible with the Christian faith. Christian pacifists state that Jesus himself was a pacifist who taught and practiced pacifism, and that his followers must do likewise."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2010 12:52:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 4:44:29 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 5/29/2010 4:11:41 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
So you won't even allow raped women to get abortions? That's terrible.

A person's a person, no matter how he was conceived.

Clearly, everyone here will let you get anyway with defining a foetus as a person. :)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2010 12:54:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 6:11:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 5/29/2010 6:59:43 AM, innomen wrote:

Hold on... many species eat their young. Hamsters especially - I once had a hamster who birthed 16 in one litter (o.0) and ate about half of them because she couldn't feed all of them and had been so weakened by giving birth...

Good God. Hamsters do that?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2010 2:10:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2010 6:11:47 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 5/29/2010 6:59:43 AM, innomen wrote:

This seems to be the only cogent response by a Christian that actually addresses the issue. We will forgive Reasoning's response and just assume he is stupid or can't read and give him another chance...

There are two areas that are being hit on here, one is at the macro level, what is best for society, and one is at the micro level, what is best for this situation. In the greater good exercise the macro will supersede the micro as society is of greater value than the individual.

Ok... but this seems a little inconsistent with what you have below... The mother is presumably a productive member of society, or at least we can stipulate that she is for the purposes of the hypothetical... the child would need to be cared for, educated, etc... in effect being a drain on the community resources. Assuming it will later offset that drain is a dangerous path...
A Christian would say that the growth of a human being is not a drain, on the contrary, it is a gift.

However, at the micro level the unborn child is of greater value than the mother as well. In human nature a mother will most always be willing to sacrifice her life for that of the child

Hold on... many species eat their young. Hamsters especially - I once had a hamster who birthed 16 in one litter (o.0) and ate about half of them because she couldn't feed all of them and had been so weakened by giving birth...
Yeah...We're not hamsters. In fact i rarely see human mothers eating their young.

therefore it is more natural for a mother to be sacrificed.

I think we've done away with this notion
Nope

Furthermore, in life values, the older one is the less value their life is.

I think this is completely unwarranted. This would mean it would be morally BETTER to abort an 8-month term baby than to abort the same baby at 4 months.
It would never be okay to abort.

If you had to decide between the life of a 2 year old and that of an 88 year old, you would choose the 2 year old - same concept in choosing between the mother and the unborn.

Noooo... not quite. The 2 year old is already out and about and such, whereas the 88 year old is close to death. The mother is not close to death, and he 3 month fetus is not even a viable organism... not the same concept at all.
Yes it is.

By making exceptions to the stance in abortion is to make exceptions to or the devaluing of the sanctity of life value.

But it seems that in this circumstance, but NOT aborting the baby and in effect condemning TWO to death instead of ONE, does that not destroy the sanctity of life even more???
By not aborting you are not taking an active role in the death of a human being, and you are not implementing a practice that overall devalues the sanctity of life.

I think that's how the church would respond.

I really do appreciate your attempt at this... I had been puzzled by this dilemma as a Catholic myself before I left the church many years ago. Let's add something to the hypothetical situation...

Suppose we cannot remove the baby in a safe procedure. Suppose the medical complication is such that if we leave the baby in the mother, she will die, and dump toxins in h blood that kills the baby or something like that. If we try to remove the baby, it will kill them both... The only one of the two it is possible to save is the mother, and the only way to save her is to abort the baby. Or we can formulate that same situation in any variant of the psychopath thought experiment you want... but same question.

We cannot save the baby - only the mother, and only by abortion. What now?

Here's the thing, or what i would say personally, there are times when the individual is greater than the church. I believe that men and women who act out of conscience and are willing to accept the penalties that may ensue are some of the greatest assets a society has. I believe the church takes a similar stance depending on where that conscience lies. Most of the martyrs are such people and the church venerates them. So, when an individual risks excommunication for making a hard decision in a moral dilemma and does an unselfish act in what they think is right, it's then between them and God, and the church will do what it must to remain consistent; much like the government that must prosecute the tax cheat that gave all his money away to the poor.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2010 11:49:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ok, so now that we've noted that Reasoning just talks a lot but doesn't say much, we can get on with actual intellectual discussion.

At 5/29/2010 6:38:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Well yes, that's exactly what this is... but we are talking about specifically willing a moral evil (from the Christian's standpoint)... so it would seem that this doctrine would have us do nothing and effectively kill two people...

I think you're missing the point. I wouldn't be a moral evil to abort the fetus if the mother's life is in danger.

Ok... but I want to go one step further... aborting a baby to save the mother would seem to be a moral GOOD.

I think most Christians would agree that killing someone in self-defense is regrettable and probably should be avoided but wouldn't be a moral evil. The same thing applies here.

Like I said, I think in this sort of circumstance, killing the baby to save the mother would be a moral GOOD. The baby will die anyway, and this course of action saves a life, rather than killing two.