Is contraception immoral...

[Guest]

It was...  I read Anatess analogy but didn't think it works the same.  In both cases the mother and child will die unless something is done.  In the both cases nothing can be done to save the child.  In the case of the pregnancy the mother speeds up the death of the child to save her own life.  In the case of the parachute the child dies as the circumstance dictate but the mother saves herself.  Big difference, given that we are trying to agree to some overarching rule.

 

I didn't see the difference.  But considering "speed up the death", then I guess that's a difference that dovetails into the "mother in peril" circumstance with only one possible outcome - so you still can't establish Will.

 

INTENT - like in the LDS faith - is the factor on this.  There is only ONE INTENT that is not sinful - LOVE the CHILD as much as one's self.  So that, in an either-or scenario - you can't INTEND to kill the child to save the mother.  But, if in the process of saving the mother, the child dies in an unwanted consequence, it's not sinful... at the same time, if in the process of saving the child, the mother dies in an unwanted consequence, it's not sinful either.  So, the INTENT needs to be concentrated 100% on the saving part while still loving the person that dies as a consequence... make sense?  So that, in cases where the baby cannot be saved, then the intent is concentrated on saving the mother with the death of the baby a consequence while the baby is fully loved.

 

By the way... this same principle still applies even when you are facing down a killer that has a knife to your son's throat while you are across the room with your .22 gauge rifle.  You cannot fire that rifle because you want to kill the killer who put your son's life in danger.  That would be a sin.  You can only fire that rifle because you want to save your son.  The INTENT has to be LOVE, not HATE.

 

And just as a personal note - the truth of this teaching is something I learned as a Catholic.  This was one of those unshakeable testimonies I carried into the LDS Church.  And, as much as I've studied and researched and pondered this thing in my head while I was investigating the LDS Church, I could not find any contradiction between the Catholic teaching and the LDS teaching on these matters.

Edited January 20, 2015 by anatess

[estradling75]

I didn't see the difference.  But considering "speed up the death", then I guess that's a difference that dovetails into the "mother in peril" circumstance with only one possible outcome - so you still can't establish Will.

 

INTENT - like in the LDS faith - is the factor on this.  There is only ONE INTENT that is not sinful - LOVE the CHILD as much as one's self.  So that, in an either-or scenario - you can't INTEND to kill the child to save the mother.  But, if in the process of saving the mother, the child dies in an unwanted consequence, it's not sinful... at the same time, if in the process of saving the child, the mother dies in an unwanted consequence, it's not sinful either.  So, the INTENT needs to be concentrated 100% on the saving part while still loving the person that dies as a consequence... make sense?  So that, in cases where the baby cannot be saved, then the intent is concentrated on saving the mother with the death of the baby a consequence while the baby is fully loved.

 

By the way... this same principle still applies even when you are facing down a killer that has a knife to your son's throat while you are across the room with your .22 gauge rifle.  You cannot fire that rifle because you want to kill the killer who put your son's life in danger.  That would be a sin.  You can only fire that rifle because you want to save your son.  The INTENT has to be LOVE, not HATE.

 

I have no reason to disbelieve you Anatess, except for the fact that LDS position tends to get Judged as wrong long before we talk about intent.

[Guest]

I have no reason to disbelieve you Anatess, except for the fact that LDS position tends to get Judged as wrong long before we talk about intent.

 

^This.

[The Folk Prophet]

By the way... this same principle still applies even when you are facing down a killer that has a knife to your son's throat while you are across the room with your .22 gauge rifle.  You cannot fire that rifle because you want to kill the killer who put your son's life in danger.  That would be a sin.  You can only fire that rifle because you want to save your son.  The INTENT has to be LOVE, not HATE.

 

To be fair, I think it invalid to subscribe a desire (want) to kill someone else as exclusively motivated by hate. Why can't you want to kill the guy with the knife from a position of love? Moreover, why can't you want to kill the guy from a position of justice, equity, and righteousness -- your love for him or for the child having nothing to do with matter whatsoever?

[Guest]

To be fair, I think it invalid to subscribe a desire (want) to kill someone else as exclusively motivated by hate. Why can't you want to kill the guy with the knife from a position of love? Moreover, why can't you want to kill the guy from a position of justice, equity, and righteousness -- your love for him or for the child having nothing to do with matter whatsoever?

 

You can't.  Because of the 2nd Greatest Commandment.  Love God and Love others as Yourself drives everything that you do.  There are no exemptions to this commandment - as in... I'm doing this because of... any other reason besides Loving God and Loving Others/Myself.  Therefore, a willful action has to fall under these 2 commandments - even if it's just to pick your nose.

Edited January 20, 2015 by anatess

[Claire]

I didn't see the difference.  But considering "speed up the death", then I guess that's a difference that dovetails into the "mother in peril" circumstance with only one possible outcome - so you still can't establish Will.

 

INTENT - like in the LDS faith - is the factor on this.  There is only ONE INTENT that is not sinful - LOVE the CHILD as much as one's self.  So that, in an either-or scenario - you can't INTEND to kill the child to save the mother.  But, if in the process of saving the mother, the child dies in an unwanted consequence, it's not sinful... at the same time, if in the process of saving the child, the mother dies in an unwanted consequence, it's not sinful either.  So, the INTENT needs to be concentrated 100% on the saving part while still loving the person that dies as a consequence... make sense?  So that, in cases where the baby cannot be saved, then the intent is concentrated on saving the mother with the death of the baby a consequence while the baby is fully loved.

 

By the way... this same principle still applies even when you are facing down a killer that has a knife to your son's throat while you are across the room with your .22 gauge rifle.  You cannot fire that rifle because you want to kill the killer who put your son's life in danger.  That would be a sin.  You can only fire that rifle because you want to save your son.  The INTENT has to be LOVE, not HATE.

 

And just as a personal note - the truth of this teaching is something I learned as a Catholic.  This was one of those unshakeable testimonies I carried into the LDS Church.  And, as much as I've studied and researched and pondered this thing in my head while I was investigating the LDS Church, I could not find any contradiction between the Catholic teaching and the LDS teaching on these matters.

 

I actually don't quite agree with the intent argument, but before I continue I'd like to make a quick disclaimer.

 

I don't necessarily have any objection to the LDS position (at least when held by LDS people). From what I can tell you guys judge the morality of an action based on intent (whether or not it is in line with God's will) and have had prophets and apostles tell you that in very specific situations, after much prayers and discernment, abortion might be acceptable. That is a reasonable position to take, and any questions I have asked up to this point were not meant to be an attack vice trying to understand your position. I'm sorry if I have hitherto not made that distinction clear.

 

Now, onto ectopic pregnancies. For those out there who may not know, ectopic pregnancies occur when an egg is fertilized and implants somewhere other than the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. 

 

Now, as I mentioned before, the most common method employed by the Church in matters like this to determine if an action is okay is the principle of double effect. Again, it is generally used when there are two outcomes to a given action, one good and one evil. The four criteria the action must pass to be okay are:

 

1. The intent of the person performing the action must be directed towards the good end, with the evil end accepted only as an unavoidable consequence.

 

2. The action itself must not be intrinsically evil.

 

3. The good accomplished must be great enough to justify the evil endured.

 

I would say that, not only in ectopic pregnancies, but also in all the cases where the LDS Church tolerates abortions, the criteria are met. The issue arises with the second criteria. 

 

As we've discussed before, Catholics can regard a much wider array of things as "evil" than LDS do based on our understanding of what it means to be evil. An intrinsically evil action is one that has an intrinsic "defect" or "fault". Abortion would be one such action because it obviously implies that one kill an innocent person, the unborn child. What this ends up meaning is that the ectopic pregnancy can only licitly be treated using a means that results in the death of the child as a side effect. In other words, it must be done by a means that does not involve directly targeting the child.

 

There are three common methods for treating an ectopic pregnancy: drugs that terminate the pregnancy, surgically removing the fetus, and surgically removing the tube. The Catholic Church only allows the third method, since the first two constitute direct attacks on the fetus, while the third does not.

 

Anyway, I don't necessarily expect everybody to necessarily agree with that rationale, but I figured I'd at least make sure you all know exactly what you're disagreeing with

[Guest]

I actually don't quite agree with the intent argument, but before I continue I'd like to make a quick disclaimer.

 

I don't necessarily have any objection to the LDS position (at least when held by LDS people). From what I can tell you guys judge the morality of an action based on intent (whether or not it is in line with God's will) and have had prophets and apostles tell you that in very specific situations, after much prayers and discernment, abortion might be acceptable. That is a reasonable position to take, and any questions I have asked up to this point were not meant to be an attack vice trying to understand your position. I'm sorry if I have hitherto not made that distinction clear.

 

Now, onto ectopic pregnancies. For those out there who may not know, ectopic pregnancies occur when an egg is fertilized and implants somewhere other than the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. 

 

Now, as I mentioned before, the most common method employed by the Church in matters like this to determine if an action is okay is the principle of double effect. Again, it is generally used when there are two outcomes to a given action, one good and one evil. The four criteria the action must pass to be okay are:

 

1. The intent of the person performing the action must be directed towards the good end, with the evil end accepted only as an unavoidable consequence.

 

2. The action itself must not be intrinsically evil.

 

3. The good accomplished must be great enough to justify the evil endured.

 

I would say that, not only in ectopic pregnancies, but also in all the cases where the LDS Church tolerates abortions, the criteria are met. The issue arises with the second criteria. 

 

As we've discussed before, Catholics can regard a much wider array of things as "evil" than LDS do based on our understanding of what it means to be evil. An intrinsically evil action is one that has an intrinsic "defect" or "fault". Abortion would be one such action because it obviously implies that one kill an innocent person, the unborn child. What this ends up meaning is that the ectopic pregnancy can only licitly be treated using a means that results in the death of the child as a side effect. In other words, it must be done by a means that does not involve directly targeting the child.

 

There are three common methods for treating an ectopic pregnancy: drugs that terminate the pregnancy, surgically removing the fetus, and surgically removing the tube. The Catholic Church only allows the third method, since the first two constitute direct attacks on the fetus, while the third does not.

 

Anyway, I don't necessarily expect everybody to necessarily agree with that rationale, but I figured I'd at least make sure you all know exactly what you're disagreeing with

 

I don't see how this is any different than what I said.

[estradling75]

I actually don't quite agree with the intent argument, but before I continue I'd like to make a quick disclaimer.

 

I don't necessarily have any objection to the LDS position (at least when held by LDS people). From what I can tell you guys judge the morality of an action based on intent (whether or not it is in line with God's will) and have had prophets and apostles tell you that in very specific situations, after much prayers and discernment, abortion might be acceptable. That is a reasonable position to take, and any questions I have asked up to this point were not meant to be an attack vice trying to understand your position. I'm sorry if I have hitherto not made that distinction clear.

 

Now, onto ectopic pregnancies. For those out there who may not know, ectopic pregnancies occur when an egg is fertilized and implants somewhere other than the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. 

 

Now, as I mentioned before, the most common method employed by the Church in matters like this to determine if an action is okay is the principle of double effect. Again, it is generally used when there are two outcomes to a given action, one good and one evil. The four criteria the action must pass to be okay are:

 

1. The intent of the person performing the action must be directed towards the good end, with the evil end accepted only as an unavoidable consequence.

 

2. The action itself must not be intrinsically evil.

 

3. The good accomplished must be great enough to justify the evil endured.

 

I would say that, not only in ectopic pregnancies, but also in all the cases where the LDS Church tolerates abortions, the criteria are met. The issue arises with the second criteria. 

 

As we've discussed before, Catholics can regard a much wider array of things as "evil" than LDS do based on our understanding of what it means to be evil. An intrinsically evil action is one that has an intrinsic "defect" or "fault". Abortion would be one such action because it obviously implies that one kill an innocent person, the unborn child. What this ends up meaning is that the ectopic pregnancy can only licitly be treated using a means that results in the death of the child as a side effect. In other words, it must be done by a means that does not involve directly targeting the child.

 

There are three common methods for treating an ectopic pregnancy: drugs that terminate the pregnancy, surgically removing the fetus, and surgically removing the tube. The Catholic Church only allows the third method, since the first two constitute direct attacks on the fetus, while the third does not.

 

Anyway, I don't necessarily expect everybody to necessarily agree with that rationale, but I figured I'd at least make sure you all know exactly what you're disagreeing with

 

 

That sounds awfully lawyerly to me (No offense meant to our resident lawyers).  I would think that once the choice is made/acknowledged that the child will not survive, then the Mother's health and wellbeing would take priority in how that comes about. 

[Claire]

 

I don't see how this is any different than what I said.

 

You seemed to be saying in your explanation that the reason ectopic pregnancies are legal for Catholics is because the abortion is not the intent but is rather evil endured for the sake of the good intended. While this is one of the conditions required to make it okay, that requirement is also met by many forms of abortion Catholics don't consider okay (as has been pointed out several times now). The criteria where other forms fail of abortion fail but where some instances of terminating an ectopic pregnancy pass is the "intrinsically evil action" portion.

 

Of course, it is possible I'm just misunderstanding your original post :)

 

 

That sounds awfully lawyerly to me (No offense meant to our resident lawyers).  I would think that once the choice is made/acknowledged that the child will not survive, then the Mother's health and wellbeing would take priority in how that comes about. 

 

Lawyerly doesn't necessarily mean wrong

 

I appreciate your sentiment, I really do. The intent behind wanting to use the method that does the least harm to the mother is certainly a good one. That being said, at least in the Catholic view of things, there are other factors at work besides just intent.

 

The example I got in one of my ethics courses in college was that of the sheriff and the racist lynch mob. In the example, you're the sheriff, and the mob wants to kill a guy they suspect of some crime (when you know he's innocent). They won't hear reason, and you know if you stop them there will likely be a riot and many more people will die as a result. Your options are:

 

1. Stop the mob from lynching the guy and deal with the riot.

2. Let the mob kill the guy but prevent the riot.

 

From a strictly utilitarian perspective, the second option seems like the most reasonable since you're preventing more deaths by allowing the killing. The argument in favor of the first option though would be that turning the guy over is an intrinsically wrong action, even if your intent for doing so was a just one and the end results are preferable.

 

Again, I suspect others will disagree, but there it is :)

Edited January 20, 2015 by Claire

[estradling75]

Lawyerly doesn't necessarily mean wrong

 

I appreciate your sentiment, I really do. The intent behind wanting to use the method that does the least harm to the mother is certainly a good one. That being said, at least in the Catholic view of things, there are other factors at work besides just intent.

 

 

I guess I have a hard time with the what the other factors are and how they outweigh mothers needs.  I mean in this case the hard part to me is the choice to terminate the pregnancy, before it naturally (and catastrophically) terminates.  The method we choose to do that isn't some how going to make the kid any less dead.  So I have a problem with the 'HOW' its done some how making me less guilty in the eyes of God. (And that is what I meant by Lawyerly)

[Claire]

I guess I have a hard time with the what the other factors are and how they outweigh mothers needs.  I mean in this case the hard part to me is the choice to terminate the pregnancy, before it naturally (and catastrophically) terminates.  The method we choose to do that isn't some how going to make the kid any less dead.  So I have a problem with the 'HOW' its done some how making me less guilty in the eyes of God. (And that is what I meant by Lawyerly)

 

I agree that the ends are the same, and perhaps even better, if the illicit means of treating the condition are employed vice the licit means. As the old saying goes, though, "the ends do not always justify the means." What the Catholic Church has determined here is that the good of minimizing the harm done to the mother in this case is not justified by the means of directly aborting the child, for the reasons stated in the original explanation.

 

Again, I don't expect you guys to agree, any more than I necessarily agree on the LDS position. Our definitions of what makes a thing "good" or "evil" differ too much for us to entirely reconcile on this. That problem even is rooted in deeper issues on how God created the world (either as an organizer of pre-existent matter or creation "ex nihilo").

 

In case you were wondering, St Augustine originally came up with our definition of good to deal with the "problem of evil." Basically, if God created everything, and evil things exists, then it would seem that God created evil things. Obviously that doesn't seem quite right, so Augustine argued that evil was a deficit of a good, so really God did not create something evil but rather he created only so much good in that thing.

 

I guess what I'm getting at we we have a lot of presumptions in our two Faiths that we would have to get through before we can really come up with satisfactory resolution on our differences on abortion and contraception.

[Blackmarch]

...in the Mormon religion?

we are commanded to bring children into this world, we are also commanded to be one with our spouse. The details of how that is fulfilled is left to the husband, wife, and their reliance on God.

So no, contraception is not necessarily immoral (but it can be if abused).

 

As for conceptions by rape, an abortion is justifiable- the woman had no choice in the matter at all, and it would be unjust to put such a burden upon her, or lay any blame at her feet.

Should a woman in such a situation choose to have an abortion, the responsibility for the death/murder of that child will fall solely upon the head of the rapist.

however should she choose not to, that woman is a saint indeed.

 

Edited January 23, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Guest]

I agree that the ends are the same, and perhaps even better, if the illicit means of treating the condition are employed vice the licit means. As the old saying goes, though, "the ends do not always justify the means." What the Catholic Church has determined here is that the good of minimizing the harm done to the mother in this case is not justified by the means of directly aborting the child, for the reasons stated in the original explanation.

 

Again, I don't expect you guys to agree, any more than I necessarily agree on the LDS position. Our definitions of what makes a thing "good" or "evil" differ too much for us to entirely reconcile on this. That problem even is rooted in deeper issues on how God created the world (either as an organizer of pre-existent matter or creation "ex nihilo").

 

In case you were wondering, St Augustine originally came up with our definition of good to deal with the "problem of evil." Basically, if God created everything, and evil things exists, then it would seem that God created evil things. Obviously that doesn't seem quite right, so Augustine argued that evil was a deficit of a good, so really God did not create something evil but rather he created only so much good in that thing.

 

I guess what I'm getting at we we have a lot of presumptions in our two Faiths that we would have to get through before we can really come up with satisfactory resolution on our differences on abortion and contraception.

 

The only thing, really, is Pre-Mortal Life versus ex nihilo.  Nothing deeper than that is necessarily to resolve the differences between LDS and Catholic on "good" versus "evil" as well as abortions and contraception, among a myriad of other things.

 

If you haven't yet, read 2 Nephi 2 from the BOM.  It's my favorite chapter of the entire BOM and shows how Augustinian teaching is different due to the presumption of ex nihilo.

Edited January 23, 2015 by anatess

[CatholicLady]

That sounds awfully lawyerly to me (No offense meant to our resident lawyers).  I would think that once the choice is made/acknowledged that the child will not survive, then the Mother's health and wellbeing would take priority in how that comes about. 

 

It's Catholic Theology.

 

Removing a damaged felopian tube, is not wrong. The unborn child dying is an unintended consequence. This is different from directly aborting your baby with the sole intent of killing your baby. <--That is always wrong, no matter what. :)

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatholicLady

[estradling75]

It's Catholic Theology.

 

Removing a damaged felopian tube, is not wrong. The unborn child dying is an unintended consequence. This is different from directly aborting your baby with the sole intent of killing your baby. <--That is always wrong, no matter what. :)

 

I get that.... it just seems disingenuous to me.

 

Lets parable it.  Lets say there is a guy on a bridge and because he is on the bridge my life is in danger.  Due to the circumstances of the parable I only have three options, Sniper shoot him, Grenade him, or attack the bridge so that it collapses and kills him.

 

I know that all three actions will kill the guy on the bridge.  I know that.  To try to say "well I didn't really kill him when I attacked the bridge" is a flat out attempt shift responsibility for an action I knowingly took which I knew the consequence of.

 

So I have a hard time accepting that God would hold me less responsible for taking out the bridge and killing the guy then he would the sniper shot killing the guy.

[Guest]

I get that.... it just seems disingenuous to me.

 

Lets parable it.  Lets say there is a guy on a bridge and because he is on the bridge my life is in danger.  Due to the circumstances of the parable I only have three options, Sniper shoot him, Grenade him, or attack the bridge so that it collapses and kills him.

 

I know that all three actions will kill the guy on the bridge.  I know that.  To try to say "well I didn't really kill him when I attacked the bridge" is a flat out attempt shift responsibility for an action I knowingly took which I knew the consequence of.

 

So I have a hard time accepting that God would hold me less responsible for taking out the bridge and killing the guy then he would the sniper shot killing the guy.

 

I'm assuming this guy on the bridge is just an innocent bystander...  but yes, I can't really find a plausible circumstance that his being on the bridge puts me in mortal danger... but let's just ignore that and go with the parable.

 

Yes, in Catholic theology, sniper shooting the guy is sinful, taking out the bridge isn't.

[estradling75]

I'm assuming this guy on the bridge is just an innocent bystander...  but yes, I can't really find a plausible circumstance that his being on the bridge puts me in mortal danger... but let's just ignore that and go with the parable.

 

Yes, in Catholic theology, sniper shooting the guy is sinful, taking out the bridge isn't.

 

I know... its hard to find an exact match parable-wise so certain assumptions have to be allowed for

[The Folk Prophet]

You can't.  Because of the 2nd Greatest Commandment.  Love God and Love others as Yourself drives everything that you do.  There are no exemptions to this commandment - as in... I'm doing this because of... any other reason besides Loving God and Loving Others/Myself.  Therefore, a willful action has to fall under these 2 commandments - even if it's just to pick your nose.

 

This is over simplistic. I can want (desire) to kill one because of the love of another (a child in danger) and have it entirely irrelevant to the individual I kill. It doesn't mean I hate him that I want him dead. It simply means that my desire is driven by a stronger love for another.

 

Or take the Nazis (yes, I'm going with Nazis). Someone in that time could have wanted to kill the Nazis without individually hating anyone in their ranks. I suspect that in wartime the desire to desperately kill others in certain circumstances is quite overwhelming, and has nothing do to with hating that person, but all to do with survival.

[The Folk Prophet]

I get that.... it just seems disingenuous to me.

 

Lets parable it.  Lets say there is a guy on a bridge and because he is on the bridge my life is in danger.  Due to the circumstances of the parable I only have three options, Sniper shoot him, Grenade him, or attack the bridge so that it collapses and kills him.

 

I know that all three actions will kill the guy on the bridge.  I know that.  To try to say "well I didn't really kill him when I attacked the bridge" is a flat out attempt shift responsibility for an action I knowingly took which I knew the consequence of.

 

So I have a hard time accepting that God would hold me less responsible for taking out the bridge and killing the guy then he would the sniper shot killing the guy.

 

Except that the taking out the bridge thing may (depending on the bridge, of course), give the guy a change at survival.

Edited January 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Claire]

I get that.... it just seems disingenuous to me.

 

Lets parable it.  Lets say there is a guy on a bridge and because he is on the bridge my life is in danger.  Due to the circumstances of the parable I only have three options, Sniper shoot him, Grenade him, or attack the bridge so that it collapses and kills him.

 

I know that all three actions will kill the guy on the bridge.  I know that.  To try to say "well I didn't really kill him when I attacked the bridge" is a flat out attempt shift responsibility for an action I knowingly took which I knew the consequence of.

 

So I have a hard time accepting that God would hold me less responsible for taking out the bridge and killing the guy then he would the sniper shot killing the guy.

 

Principle of double effect, take 2 :)

 

Okay, the first thing we need to look at is intent. It goes without saying that if your intent is the kill the other guy and not to kill yourself then it's not okay. That being said, we'll assume the intent is to save yourself, and move on.

 

Next, is the action an intrinsic evil? To answer that, we first need to know if your life is the guy on the bridge is the one threatening your life. Remember, killing is only an intrinsic evil IF you kill an innocent. If he his trying to kill you, then sniping him or using your grenade are not intrinsically evil and may be okay. We will suppose, however, that the guy is not responsible for the predicament, in which case directly killing him would be an intrinsic evil, and then sniping and grenading him are illicit.

 

This brings us to our last criteria, does the good achieved justify the evil consequence. The good achieved, saving your own life, is the same in either case.

 

The evil consequence is where the two scenarios really depart. In the case of removing the tube, the evil done is somewhat mitigated because the baby dies whether or not you do anything. In the case of the bridge, the guy will survive if you don't blow it up. In this regard, it's more akin to a pregnant woman undergoing chemo. She has the choice to either try to save herself but risk the baby, or to save the baby but to die from the cancer. It's a tough scenario and with a ton of variables and the Church will allow for a prudential judgement to be made by the mother. As TFP said, though, in the case of undergoing chemo or blowing up the bridge, there is at least some possibility of survival.

[Vort]

Except that the taking out the bridge thing may (depending on the bridge, of course), give the guy a change at survival.

 

But in the context of the issue for which the parable was given, the bridge is the fallopian tube and the guy standing on it is the zygote. Survival of the "guy" isn't an option.

[Vort]

Okay, the first thing we need to look at is intent. It goes without saying that if your intent is the kill the other guy and not to kill yourself then it's not okay. That being said, we'll assume the intent is to save yourself, and move on.

 

Next, is the action an intrinsic evil? To answer that, we first need to know if your life is the guy on the bridge is the one threatening your life. Remember, killing is only an intrinsic evil IF you kill an innocent. If he his trying to kill you, then sniping him or using your grenade are not intrinsically evil and may be okay. We will suppose, however, that the guy is not responsible for the predicament, in which case directly killing him would be an intrinsic evil, and then sniping and grenading him are illicit.

 

I have no argument with the double effect rule per se, but I don't recognize it as any sort of gospel-based principle, just a philosophical point based in how the world seems to work.

 

That said, I think you're missing the point of the (admittedly imperfect) parable. The man's very presence on the bridge is causing a mechanism to drive a knife into your gut, millimeter by millimeter. The man himself is doomed, though he doesn't realize it, since the entire bridge will collapse when he attempts to get off (or when the knife penetrates your abdomen). In other words, the man is as good as dead -- and he doesn't even have a cell phone to call his wife or any paper to write out a last will and testament. Your choice is simply this: (1) Kill the man and live while the man dies, or (2) don't kill the man and die while the man dies.

 

You have a religious reason for trying to distinguish between whether the man dies by sniping or by grenade or by the bridge falling down, but (as far as the parable goes) Latter-day Saints have no such religious reason. To us, it's a simple matter of one dies vs. two die.

[Guest]

This is over simplistic. I can want (desire) to kill one because of the love of another (a child in danger) and have it entirely irrelevant to the individual I kill. It doesn't mean I hate him that I want him dead. It simply means that my desire is driven by a stronger love for another.

 

Or take the Nazis (yes, I'm going with Nazis). Someone in that time could have wanted to kill the Nazis without individually hating anyone in their ranks. I suspect that in wartime the desire to desperately kill others in certain circumstances is quite overwhelming, and has nothing do to with hating that person, but all to do with survival.

 

Yes, over simplistic when read as a sentence, but its complex implications drive our existence.

 

The desire to kill is problematic.  Because you still need to love the person you desire to kill.  The commandment - Love your neighbor - is not predicated by - unless he wants to kill your kid, then you don't need to love him anymore.  Therefore, the action of killing has to be made with LOVE for both killer and kid as yourself.

 

So, if you can honestly say you love the guy as you desire to kill him for the love of your kid... then that is just fine, I suppose.

[estradling75]

The evil consequence is where the two scenarios really depart. In the case of removing the tube, the evil done is somewhat mitigated because the baby dies whether or not you do anything. In the case of the bridge, the guy will survive if you don't blow it up. In this regard, it's more akin to a pregnant woman undergoing chemo. She has the choice to either try to save herself but risk the baby, or to save the baby but to die from the cancer. It's a tough scenario and with a ton of variables and the Church will allow for a prudential judgement to be made by the mother. As TFP said, though, in the case of undergoing chemo or blowing up the bridge, there is at least some possibility of survival.

Like I say its hard to have an exact match...  For the purposes of this parable this Guy is both innocent and doomed to die no matter what, and this is also known to us

 

Your last bit is pretty much the LDS position  There are tough scenarios with a ton of variables and the LDS Church will allow for prudential judgment to be made by the mother. (That is what we mean when we say the Mother should prayerfully consider the council of doctors and her Church leaders)  Yet we get grief for acknowledging that there are such positions and for the LDS Church saying in such cases it is up to the mother.

[Claire]

I have no argument with the double effect rule per se, but I don't recognize it as any sort of gospel-based principle, just a philosophical point based in how the world seems to work.

 

That said, I think you're missing the point of the (admittedly imperfect) parable. The man's very presence on the bridge is causing a mechanism to drive a knife into your gut, millimeter by millimeter. The man himself is doomed, though he doesn't realize it, since the entire bridge will collapse when he attempts to get off (or when the knife penetrates your abdomen). In other words, the man is as good as dead -- and he doesn't even have a cell phone to call his wife or any paper to write out a last will and testament. Your choice is simply this: (1) Kill the man and live while the man dies, or (2) don't kill the man and die while the man dies.

 

You have a religious reason for trying to distinguish between whether the man dies by sniping or by grenade or by the bridge falling down, but (as far as the parable goes) Latter-day Saints have no such religious reason. To us, it's a simple matter of one dies vs. two die.

 

Like I say its hard to have an exact match...  For the purposes of this parable this Guy is both innocent and doomed to die no matter what

 

Your last bit is pretty much the LDS position  There are tough scenarios with a ton of variables and the LDS Church will allow for prudential judgment to be made by the mother. (That is what we mean when we say the Mother should prayerfully consider the council of doctors and her Church leaders)  Yet we get grief for acknowledging that there are such positions and for the LDS Church saying in such cases it is up to the mother.

 

I agree with both your points, and think that to a certain extent we reached a consensus earlier in this thread about why we differ where we differ. The principle of double effect isn't biblical, granted, but it is a natural consequence of our having to deal with our interpretations of the bible.

 

The big difference between the two views seems to be whether intrinsically evil actions exist, as we all seem to be in agreement as far as intent and balancing consequences goes.