Is contraception immoral...

[Vort]

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?

 

I appreciated your post and found it informative, but it didn't answer all my questions. The parallels you gave aren't really very parallel. Granted, I am approaching this from a different perspective. I understand (in broad outlines, at least) the general distinction you are drawing, but my gut feeling is that many events are not well-demarcated by that rule.

[CatholicLady]

What if you intend to move the baby, even though you know it has zero chance of survival without divine intervention?

 

Let's put it in a different perspective. Let's say a six-year-old gets pregnant. She's far too tiny to carry the baby to term, or even to viability. She will be harmed or killed by the pregnancy. Does Catholic doctrine allow the six-year-old to abort the baby? Or does she have to have her entire uterus removed as a pretext to make it allowable?

 

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.  

[Claire]

If I take medication knowing that that it would make me drowsy... But I take it with the intent manage my pain only...  The fact that I didn't take the medication with the intent to becomes drowsy, does not absolve me if when I become drowsy due to the medicine I cause an accident and cause damage to life, limb, and property. I knew that was a possibly and I chose to do it anyway.

 

I honestly don't understand why it is so hard to explain that we will be accountable for what we do, with what we know.

 

When talking about intent for the purposes of moral decisions, we basically mean "why am I doing this." You take the medicine knowing full well you're going to become drowsy, but that's not the reason why you took it. You took it for the pain, and becoming drowsy is a side effect you're willing to endure.

 

On Vort's scenario, I'll start by saying that I honestly think more details are needed on the exact cause of what's killing the mother, but I will try to muck my way through it anyway.

 

First, I'm going to skip intent and weighing the good/bad, because I don't think there's much debate on that part of it. I will move on to the intrinsic evil bit.

 

I'll start by saying that directly killing the child is an intrinsic evil. That means you cannot ever "cut it out", use abortion inducing drugs, ect. You can not do any of those things even if it means the death of the mother is probable. The reason for this is because that baby, even if it isn't viable, is still a human being with every bit as much right to live as the mother. Prolonging one person's life for any number of years does not justify ending another's, even if death is inevitable.

 

Now, as for what treatment options are available, again some of the details here matter. If the uterus was defective and is the reason the mother and baby would die, then removing the defective uterus is licit.  If the woman has some sort of condition apart from the uterus that is the reason why she is likely to die, then she can pursue treatment for that condition, but she would not be allowed to cut out the uterus (as in this scenario it has nothing to do with the condition).

 

And there have been three replies since I started typing. When did this thread blow up so much? :)

[Bini]

Wow, I have learned a lot about how Catholics think.

[Vort]

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.  

 

Okay, so the bottom line is: If a pregnant woman is in danger of dying because of her pregnancy before the baby is viable (which would of course kill both her baby and herself) and no other treatment options are available, Catholic doctrine prevents her from taking any action to save herself. She must die to fulfill the will of God. Is this a fair and correct assessment?

[CatholicLady]

I call bull...   If you know then you can not say it was UNINTENDED because you knew that was what would happen and you did it anyway.    You can say it was undesirable, you can say it was unwanted,  you can even say it was unfortunate all those would be true but you can not say it was unintended .

 

When you have knowledge then your intent is informed and influenced by that knowledge.

 

So yes your intent matters, but so does what we choose to do when we understand the consequence. 

 

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? 

[CatholicLady]

If I take medication knowing that that it would make me drowsy... But I take it with the intent manage my pain only...  The fact that I didn't take the medication with the intent to becomes drowsy, does not absolve me if when I become drowsy due to the medicine I cause an accident and cause damage to life, limb, and property. I knew that was a possibly and I chose to do it anyway.

 

I honestly don't understand why it is so hard to explain that we will be accountable for what we do, with what we know.

 

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

[CatholicLady]

I honestly don't understand why it is so hard to explain that we will be accountable for what we do, with what we know.

 

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

[CatholicLady]

No, I posit the idea of leaving the fallopian tube intact while removing the ectopic pregnancy. No one wants the baby to die, but if the fatal obstruction (aka the baby) can be removed without destroying the fallopian tube, is that permissible under Catholic doctrine?

Equivalently, if a woman's pregnancy will kill her before the baby reaches viability, does Catholic doctrine allow her to abort the baby to save her life? If not, does it allow her to have her entire uterus removed, baby and all, to save her life?

 

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. 

[estradling75]

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? 

 

I am not calling Catholic theology "bull." (at least I am not intending to) I am calling the idea that if you know something is going to happen if you act a certain way... And then you act that way that you can claim that you 100% did not intend for it to happen.  Is that Catholic theology?

[estradling75]

Let me see if I can summarize my complaint..

 

The Setup

The baby is going to die and kill the mother with it.

The baby can not be saved. 

The only way to save the mother is to kill the baby before it takes mommy with it.

 

Those are the facts.

The LDS position is well that sucks... Do what you got to do.

What I understand the Catholic position to be   well that sucks... You can not kill the baby.  But if you can do something else with the side effect of killing the baby and that is ok as long as your didn't "Intend To."   That understanding is what I consider very hair spliting and lawyery

[Vort]

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. 

 

The uterus is not cancerous. The intent is to remove the uterus (or, equivalently, the baby) to save the mother, not to kill the baby.

 

I believe I already have my answer: The Catholic doctrinal position is that the mother must die along with the unborn baby rather than sacrifice (kill) the unborn baby to save the mother. Is this correct?

[CatholicLady]

What I understand the Catholic position to be   well that sucks... You can not kill the baby.  But if you can do something else with the side effect of killing the baby and that is ok as long as your didn't "Intend To."   That understanding is what I consider very hair spliting and lawyery

 

No.

 

Catholic position is, well that sucks. You cannot kill a baby.

[CatholicLady]

The uterus is not cancerous. The intent is to remove the uterus (or, equivalently, the baby) to save the mother, not to kill the baby.

 

I believe I already have my answer: The Catholic doctrinal position is that the mother must die along with the unborn baby rather than sacrifice (kill) the unborn baby to save the mother. Is this correct?

 

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.   

[Jane_Doe]

No.

 

Catholic position is, well that sucks. You cannot kill a baby.

 

 

So, Catholic position:

 

Sucks, you can't kill a baby.  So mom is going to die too.  Sucks.

 

Correct?

 

(not meaning to be antagonist, just trying to get concrete position)

[estradling75]

No.

 

Catholic position is, well that sucks. You cannot kill a baby.

 

Then the whole removing of the tube is not a acceptable response that the others told me it was?

[Claire]

 

Okay, so the bottom line is: If a pregnant woman is in danger of dying because of her pregnancy before the baby is viable (which would of course kill both her baby and herself) and no other treatment options are available, Catholic doctrine prevents her from taking any action to save herself. She must die to fulfill the will of God. Is this a fair and correct assessment?

 

"She must die to fulfill the will of God" is a bit strong. If people bash down more door tomorrow and demand that I curse Christ's name or they will kill me, and I say no, then I don't think my subsequent getting killed would be the considered "the will of God." It's a bad consequence of a horrible situation.

 

Other than that, yes, you are correct. you cannot abort the baby, because you are murdering the baby. Nobody wants the mother to die, but preemptively killing the baby to save her is not a valid answer. You can, however, try every experimental treatment in the book, even if it seriously risks the baby.

 

I am not calling Catholic theology "bull." (at least I am not intending to) I am calling the idea that if you know something is going to happen if you act a certain way... And then you act that way that you can claim that you 100% did not intend for it to happen.  Is that Catholic theology?

 

Again, for the purposes of moral analysis, "intent" means why we're going it. Back to the medicine, you take it because you're sick. You know full well that it will make you drowsy as well, but it's a side effect you're willing to put up with. The drowsiness is not why you did it though.

 

 

Let me see if I can summarize my complaint..

 

The Setup

The baby is going to die and kill the mother with it.

The baby can not be saved. 

The only way to save the mother is to kill the baby before it takes mommy with it.

 

Those are the facts.

The LDS position is well that sucks... Do what you got to do.

What I understand the Catholic position to be   well that sucks... You can not kill the baby.  But if you can do something else with the side effect of killing the baby and that is ok as long as your didn't "Intend To."   That understanding is what I consider very hair spliting and lawyery

 

Is there some hair splitting involved? Absolutely. We're dealing with a very difficult situation, and the margin for error on making the right decision, whatever that is, isn't exactly wide. But no, you cannot ever directly kill an innocent human being, even if you're shortening their life by a few days to increase your own by several years.

[CatholicLady]

So, Catholic position:

 

Sucks, you can't kill a baby.  So mom is going to die too.  Sucks.

 

Correct?

 

(not meaning to be antagonist, just trying to get concrete position)

 

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. 

[CatholicLady]

Then the whole removing of the tube is not a acceptable response that the others told me it was?

 

Removing a damaged fallopian tube is not immoral.

[Jane_Doe]

Removing a damaged fallopian tube is not immoral.

 

But there's a baby in it!  And by removing the tube you are insuring the baby dies.  Yes, killing the baby is not your goal, but you know it's going to happen.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

If I take medication knowing that that it would make me drowsy... But I take it with the intent manage my pain only...  The fact that I didn't take the medication with the intent to becomes drowsy, does not absolve me if when I become drowsy due to the medicine I cause an accident and cause damage to life, limb, and property. I knew that was a possibly and I chose to do it anyway.

 

I honestly don't understand why it is so hard to explain that we will be accountable for what we do, with what we know.

 

I also honestly don't understand why you can't separate the intent from the result/consequence.

[Guest]

But there's a baby in it!  And by removing the tube you are insuring the baby dies.

 

There has been pages of discussion on the moral issue of an Unintended Consequence.

[estradling75]

Removing a damaged fallopian tube is not immoral.

 

Lets be very clear it not just a damaged fallopian tube.  Its a fallopian tube with a viable egg implanted in it causing the damage.  You can not remove the tube without killing the baby.  As much as you might wish otherwise...

 

So your answer is really yes it is ok.. as long as you do enough hand waving and mental gymnastics to convince yourself that is not what you are really doing

[CatholicLady]

But there's a baby in it!  And by removing the tube you are insuring the baby dies.

 

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?

[estradling75]

I also honestly don't understand why you can't separate the intent from the result/consequence.

 

I can....   How can you reasonably expect to tell someone...   "I knew what I did would hurt you... And I did it anyways because I judged something else to be more important and that is what I wanted."  and expect that that they wouldn't really be hurt after all.

 

After all they say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions