Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
utsfl:classroom:seminars:pba303h [2016/10/14 10:00] – balleyneutsfl:classroom:seminars:pba303h [2023/11/08 21:59] (current) – mmccann
Line 91: Line 91:
  
 The deliberate and direct killing of a human being is always wrong. Direct abortion, willed as an ends or a means, is always a serious moral evil. Double-effect reasoning does not seem precise enough. The deliberate and direct killing of a human being is always wrong. Direct abortion, willed as an ends or a means, is always a serious moral evil. Double-effect reasoning does not seem precise enough.
 +
 +Before viability, you have to have an extreme vital conflict before you can apply double-effect reasoning. We're talking about inducing labour here, not doing a surgical removal of the child (D&C).
 +
 +After viability, you just need a proportionate reason that inducing labour is in the best interest of the child and the mother.
  
 ==== Uterine Cancer ==== ==== Uterine Cancer ====
Line 99: Line 103:
 If you have moral certainty that (a) there is no longer anything medical technology can offer, (b) the child is not viable, and (c) you cannot wait to viability otherwise both will die, then and only then does double-effect reasoning offer a way forward. If you have moral certainty that (a) there is no longer anything medical technology can offer, (b) the child is not viable, and (c) you cannot wait to viability otherwise both will die, then and only then does double-effect reasoning offer a way forward.
  
 +==== Ectopic Pregnancy ====
 +FIXME laptop notes
  
 +FIXME 
 +Q from a fellow pro-lifer, regarding a video that talks about how purposefully removing the baby too early (e.g. abortion pill) is still a form of killing the baby because you are purposefully putting the baby in a lethal environment.
 +PL: "But this is exactly what we do when the mother's life is in danger - and early delivery - with every hope that the child will live, even though they often won't.
 +And we do not consider this killing; rather it shows respect for life. How do we reconcile this comment with this post?"
 +Maria: "in a life-threatening scenario like that, the child is no longer safe when inside the mother, either; so yes, you are moving her to an unsafe
 +environment, but I don't think that is making her 'worse off', given that she was already in an unsafe environment. Consider two different scenarios: on a night with a crazy snowstorm, a mom and her infant are safely inside a warm house. She purposely puts the baby outside, and the baby freezes to death. I think we would all agree that that is a very immoral action and was a form of killing the baby. Now imagine the same scenario–mom and baby are in the house, crazy snowstorm outside, but then the house catches fire. The mother runs outside of the burning building with her baby, but the roads are so bad that the paramedics and
 +firefighters don't get there for ages. By that time, the baby has died of
 +exposure. In that second scenario, was she responsible for the baby's death? No; she and the baby left an imminently lethal environment, and then there just wasn't enough help in time to preserve the baby's life."