Num Excommunicated for Allowing Abortion to Save a Mother's Life.

[Badger]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/21/nun-excommunicated-for-abortion-decision-to-save-mothers-life/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

The comments from Rev. Doyle, a canon lawyer, in the NPR story is particuarly insightful.

Any pro-life Catholics other then Libertas, or pro-lifers in general, willing to defend this decision?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not surprising.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I do believe that abortion ought to be legal only if it must be done to save the life of the mother.

[Lief 🗽]

Saving a person's life: excommunication.

Molesting a child: a slap on the wrist and re-assignment.

The Catholic Church, everybody!

[Torie]

Er, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion to save a mother's life is moral. At least that is my recollection. So color me confused per the headline. Maybe I should read the article.

OK, here is a squib I found on the matter (which strikes me as close to a save the mother's life exception, but maybe not quite co-extensive (you kill the fetus first in the womb before aborting it or something):

"Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."

I wonder if the nun can appeal this decision. If she can, she certainly should. After now reading the article, it does not appear the bishop followed the above stricture, because what he said is that it is not OK to perform medical treatments if the result will be to kill the fetus. And if the Church denies her appeal, that will generate a lot more news of course. It will be particularly exacerbating, because here the diagnosis was that the choice was either 1) kill the fetus and save the mother, or 2) not kill the fetus, and then a bit later both the mother and fetus would die, with near 100% probability. How that can be justified under any logical moral construct escapes me.

Perhaps Supersoulty might comment on this?  Chris?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Upon reading a bit more in depth, it looks like the bishop in question does not adhere to that and that abortion is wrong under all circumstances, and that even doing an abortion in such an exception requires the bishop's approval and the nun was not authorized it to give it.

Here's hoping this nun doesn't bother to reconcile and says to hell with this church.

[Torie]

Here is a bit more. A militant Catholic priest or ex priest on the Free Republic site (I know the man well, and he believes that anyone who performs an abortion should be executed, and even I think that someone who kills someone who performs an abortion should not be prosecuted, but I am not sure about the latter) has this to say:

"I wasn’t referring to guilt, but to the gravity of the sin. The gravity of the sin is the same in both cases.

You don’t seem to be familiar with the Principle of Double Effect.

It is NEVER permissible to perform/procure an abortion—for any reason whatsoever.

If a woman has a life-threatening illness, she may choose to undergo treatment for that illness, even if the treatment may have the side effect of killing an unborn child.

That is NOT an abortion.

Procuring an abortion is NEVER licit; it is always a crime; it is never permitted, not even to “save the life of the mother.”

So maybe the answer is that the mother can be treated short of an abortion with the side effect of killing the fetus (at which time I assume removing the dead fetus is OK), but if such treatment will not kill the fetus, and the only thing that will save her is an abortion, then both the fetus and the mother have to die, if that is the consequence of not having an abortion. Sometimes I just hate being a lawyer, to be honest, because I just can't help my mind spinning its tangled webs of analysis. It happens almost effortlessly these days. Maybe I need therapy.

[Bo]

You spelled "Nun" wrong.

The Catholic Church was wrong to excommunicate the nun. Abortion should be legal if it is to save the mother's life.

[Franzl]

and even I think that someone who kills someone who performs an abortion should not be prosecuted

really?

[Gustaf]

Here is a bit more. A militant Catholic priest or ex priest on the Free Republic site (I know the man well, and he believes that anyone who performs an abortion should be executed, and even I think that someone who kills someone who performs an abortion should not be prosecuted, but I am not sure about the latter) has this to say:

"I wasn’t referring to guilt, but to the gravity of the sin. The gravity of the sin is the same in both cases.

You don’t seem to be familiar with the Principle of Double Effect.

It is NEVER permissible to perform/procure an abortion—for any reason whatsoever.

If a woman has a life-threatening illness, she may choose to undergo treatment for that illness, even if the treatment may have the side effect of killing an unborn child.

That is NOT an abortion.

Procuring an abortion is NEVER licit; it is always a crime; it is never permitted, not even to “save the life of the mother.”

So maybe the answer is that the mother can be treated short of an abortion with the side effect of killing the fetus (at which time I assume removing the dead fetus is OK), but if such treatment will not kill the fetus, and the only thing that will save her is an abortion, then both the fetus and the mother have to die, if that is the consequence of not having an abortion. Sometimes I just hate being a lawyer, to be honest, because I just can't help my mind spinning its tangled webs of analysis. It happens almost effortlessly these days. Maybe I need therapy.

Yeah, the Catholic Church is a big believer in the Doctrine of DE.

(Franzl, I was confused first as well but Torie thinks this other guy has this opinion, he doesn't think the opinion himself )

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If one holds that the life of the fetus is sacred, the position of the bishop is perfectly rational. After all, it is not alright to kill someone who'll die anyway in order to save another person. With that said, I reject such notions & as such am deeply disappointed with the bishop's actions.

[Torie]

    If one holds that the life of the fetus is sacred, the position of the bishop is perfectly rational. After all, it is not alright to kill someone who'll die anyway in order to save another person. With that said, I reject such notions & as such am deeply disappointed with the bishop's actions.

One thought that comes to mind about that, is that the fetus will automatically die when the mother dies, because the mother died. So it is not like killing some guy on a boat lost at sea who is clearly the one who will die first of starvation, like in an hour, because if he is not eaten now, the boat will sink because it can't carry the extra weight, like in 20 minutes.  In this abortion hypo, the death of one causes the death of the other. Does this make any moral difference as to whether it is moral or not to kill someone who will die anyway (and here we mean like in the immediate future, since we will all die anyway), in order to save another person?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If one holds that the life of the fetus is sacred, the position of the bishop is perfectly rational. After all, it is not alright to kill someone who'll die anyway in order to save another person. With that said, I reject such notions & as such am deeply disappointed with the bishop's actions.

One thought that comes to mind about that, is that the fetus will automatically die when the mother dies, because the mother died. So it is not like killing some guy on a boat lost at sea who is clearly the one who will die first of starvation, like in an hour, because if he is not eaten now, the boat will sink because it can't carry the extra weight, like in 20 minutes.  In this abortion hypo, the death of one causes the death of the other. Does this make any moral difference as to whether it is moral or not to kill someone who will die anyway (and here we mean like in the immediate future, since we will all die anyway), in order to save another person?

     I wouldn't think that it would be particularly relevant whether the death of the doomed person is dependent or independent of the death of the second person. Either way, one person will die & the other will survive only if the death of the first is expedited by a third party actor. Then again, I am unfamiliar with Catholic theology, so I cannot really be claiming to speak with authority here.

[12th Doctor]

Er, the Catholic Church teaches that abortion to save a mother's life is moral. At least that is my recollection. So color me confused per the headline. Maybe I should read the article.

OK, here is a squib I found on the matter (which strikes me as close to a save the mother's life exception, but maybe not quite co-extensive (you kill the fetus first in the womb before aborting it or something):

"Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."

I wonder if the nun can appeal this decision. If she can, she certainly should. After now reading the article, it does not appear the bishop followed the above stricture, because what he said is that it is not OK to perform medical treatments if the result will be to kill the fetus. And if the Church denies her appeal, that will generate a lot more news of course. It will be particularly exacerbating, because here the diagnosis was that the choice was either 1) kill the fetus and save the mother, or 2) not kill the fetus, and then a bit later both the mother and fetus would die, with near 100% probability. How that can be justified under any logical moral construct escapes me.

Perhaps Supersoulty might comment on this?  Chris?

Your analysis is correct.  The Catholic Church permits medicinal abortions if they are out of absolute necessity to save a woman's life.  The problem is that local bishops don't always adhere to this notion, and forbid all abortions, outright no matter the reasons, the rationale being that God would not permit such a thing unless it were predestined... yada, yada... not a Catholic rationale at all, but a Calvinist one and just one of many ways that Calvinism has perverted not the theology of the Church, but rather how some people view the theology of the Church.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there...

In theory, she can appeal to the Vatican.  Whether or not the Vatican will accept the appeal is another matter.  By canon law, they ought to, but many things don't happen the way they should.

[12th Doctor]

Put this in the wrong thread:

Related to my point in the other thread, people always bash "The Catholic Church" for not allowing enough local control from the bishops.  But, when we do allow more local control, crazy sh**t like this happens.  And then who do people blame?  Not the local bishop... they blame the Vatican... "The Catholic Church".

[Gustaf]

The Doctrine of Double-effect says that it is all-right to do a small bad as an unwanted side-effect of a large good.

A classic example is a bomber dropping bombs on a war factory. He knows that civilians will die as an effect of his bombing, but he does not intend for them to die. Thus, the Doctrine of DE says it is ok.

The basic test of the doctrine is whether you would still perform the act even if the intended effect was removed (would the bomber drop the bombs even if the factory was not there). If the answer is no, then it is ok.

Personally, I think there are large complications with the doctrine if you study it closely, because you get into a lot of thorny issues.

[Derek]

what's your point?

[fezzyfestoon]

Saving a person's life: excommunication.

Molesting a child: a slap on the wrist and re-assignment.

The Catholic Church, everybody!

Unbelievable, really.

[Derek]

Saving a person's life: excommunication.

Molesting a child: a slap on the wrist and re-assignment.

The Catholic Church, everybody!

Unbelievable, really.

That is true, but in reference to abortions, not every pro-lifer is the way that they are being portrayed on this.

[Free Palestine]

What the hell is a Num?  Is that the same as nom?

[Gustaf]

what's your point?

Read the thread, think a little bit and stop posting rubbish. I'm really losing my patience with you...Torie made a post about the double effect so I commented on that.

[Јas]

    If one holds that the life of the fetus is sacred, the position of the bishop is perfectly rational. After all, it is not alright to kill someone who'll die anyway in order to save another person. With that said, I reject such notions & as such am deeply disappointed with the bishop's actions.

One thought that comes to mind about that, is that the fetus will automatically die when the mother dies, because the mother died. So it is not like killing some guy on a boat lost at sea who is clearly the one who will die first of starvation, like in an hour, because if he is not eaten now, the boat will sink because it can't carry the extra weight, like in 20 minutes.  In this abortion hypo, the death of one causes the death of the other. Does this make any moral difference as to whether it is moral or not to kill someone who will die anyway (and here we mean like in the immediate future, since we will all die anyway), in order to save another person?

May be of interest... R v. Dudley and Stephens [1884]

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/21/nun-excommunicated-for-abortion-decision-to-save-mothers-life/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

The comments from Rev. Doyle, a canon lawyer, in the NPR story is particuarly insightful.

Any pro-life Catholics other then Libertas, or pro-lifers in general, willing to defend this decision?

Uh, where did I ever say I would oppose abortion if necessary to save the mother's life?

[12th Doctor]

Saving a person's life: excommunication.

Molesting a child: a slap on the wrist and re-assignment.

The Catholic Church, everybody!

Unbelievable, really.

I have a question:

When you people totally abandon your intellectual honesty and integrity, is there like a sucking feeling, or is it more like a part of your mind is being cut out?

[RI]

The bishop was in the wrong for automatically declaring the nun excommunicated. In case anyone didn't see this though, she was readmitted to the Church.