CatholicLady

I'm glad to see that you agree with the 2 different moralities of these 2 separate actions we are discussing. But I must ask... if intent to kill verses no intent to kill is not what separates these 2 actions morally, then what is?

It's not word play. :) Being killed by another person who purposely sought you out to kill you, and dying as a result of medical treatment where death was not the goal, are 2 different things with 2 different moralities. It doesn't really matter what words you choose to use at this point. You may not agree that they are different in morality, but do you see where they are at least 2 different things?

No, I never said that since I didn't intend to hurt her, she didn't get hurt. And likewise, I never said that just because someone did not intend for the baby to die, that he did not die. I never said it does not change the outcome (friend getting hurt/baby dying). But it does change the morality of the situation. Wouldn't you agree that me telling my friend that her BF is cheating on her so that she will know the truth about her man, is different from my telling my friend this information specifically to tear her down? Don't you think these 2 scenarios are different, morally?

Just not to the rude post. :)

It's not word play. :) Being killed by another person who purposely sought you out to kill you, and dying as a result of medical treatment where death was not the goal, are 2 different things with 2 different moralities. You may not agree that they are different in morality, but do you see where they are at least 2 different things?

Folk, how do you feel about my post #235? As for your last paragraph, no. Catholicism never justifies abortion. An unintended death of an unborn baby is not abortion, just as an unintended death of a born person is not murder.

Depends. Some sticky situations still have a black and white morality to them. Some don't, and need to be prayed over.

I told my best friend that her boyfriend was cheating on her. I knew it would hurt her, but I didn't tell her so that it would hurt her, I told her so that she would know the truth about the man she was dating. That is not wrong. If I had told her specifically to hurt her, then yes, that would be wrong.

Touche, Ana. Thanks for helping me explain my side. :) God bless.

The last line was demeaning, so I don't think I'm going to respond to you here. :/

Bottom line is this guys... you don't have to agree that intent to kill and intent to treat an ailment (that may result in death), are 2 morally different things. You don't have to agree with that. No one here is trying to convince you to agree with that concept. :) At this point all I'm trying to do is help you understand it. Can we at least say we all understand, even if some of us may not agree? Yes? Yessss? Bueller? Lol.

Yes, but as we have explained, the baby dying is an unintended side effect of the removal of a damaged fallopian tube. This is no different from the removal of a cancerous uterus (that has a baby in it). Or chemo therapy. The baby dies as an unintended consequence of medical treatment for an illness or abnormality. This is different from the baby being targeted for death, for the sake of its death. Did you see my post a couple pages ago where I wrote about 2 scenarios?

Removing a damaged fallopian tube is not immoral.

Yes. Killing an innocent person to save yourself is never moral. Even if that means you both die, you still cannot call it moral to kill another innocent person. Whether that person be in the womb, or out of it, doesn't change the morality of the act.

So why would the uterus be removed? What specifically is wrong with the uterus that it needs to be removed? Lol, yes, that is correct. Like I said in my 2 scenario post, we cannot kill another innocent person. Even if someone was holding a gun to my head and said "kill your daughter and I will let you go, otherwise you both die," it would still be wrong to kill my daughter. Killing an innocent human being is worse than death.

No. Catholic position is, well that sucks. You cannot kill a baby.

If the intended outcome is to kill the baby, then yes, it seems they would want the baby to die, if that is what they are trying to do. No, it is not permissible to "remove" (aka, kill) the baby. No, Catholicism teaches that abortion is not moral. If the intent is removal of the uterus in order to kill the baby, no, that is not allowed. If the uterus is cancerous, however, then yes. It would be permissible to remove a cancerous uterus. If there happens to be a baby in that cancerous uterus, and the baby dies as a side effect of the cancer treatment hysterectomy, that is not considered an abortion, and is not immoral.

Hm?? This is a separate topic. This sounds like a discussion of culpability to me.

But do you at least agree that it was not your intended end result for those things to happen?

Estradling, I get that you don't agree, or don't understand, or both. But please be respectful of our beliefs. Calling Catholic theology "bull" is not nice. And I am surprised to see this coming from you... you were the one who expressed being so offended when Catholics look down on LDS teachings. So why are you doing the same thing?

Lol. NO. Catholic doctrine does not allow abortion. Period. Ever. For any reason. :) And come on, surely you understand that removing the uterus in order to kill the baby is no different from killing the baby while the baby is still inside her! Now, let's say she has uterine cancer, while being pregnant. The cancerous uterus must be removed. This is allowable because you are removing the cancer, and the fact that the baby dies in the process of removing the cancer is an un intended side effect. You are not removing the uterus for the sole purpose of killing a baby.

Just curious, what is everyone's thoughts on this post I made? Lol. I typed up this big long thing to help explain what I meant, and I think I made myself pretty clear. Regardless of whether you agree or not, does this post help you at least understand the concept? What do you think about it?

Hm? Depends on what you mean by "moving the baby." Does this just mean removing the damaged fallopian tube? And does the mother/doctors actually *want* the baby to die?

Hm? Depends on what you mean by "moving the baby." Does this just mean removing the damaged fallopian tube? And does the mother/doctors actually *want* the baby to die?

When you take a medication for arthritis pain with the side effect of drowsiness, do you take the medication with the intent of getting drowsy? No. You take it to ease your pain, you don't take it to get drowsy. Knowing drowsiness is a definite or possible side effect is not the same as taking it with the intent of getting drowsy. I honestly don't understand why it's getting so hard to explain the difference between intending for an effect to happen, verses the effect happening as a side effect to a completely different intent. I don't fault you for not agreeing, but I can't understand why you at least don't grasp the concept I am trying to explain. Perhaps I am not making myself clear?