Hi Nick —
The issues here are that a woman (a catholic nun no less) said saving one life is better than losing two lives, that the (now) ex-nun stood up and said the Catholic Church was wrong, and was willing to lose her job over it.
No, it's an issue because it centres on a moral principle of the right, or otherwise, to take a life, otherwise there would be no discussion in the first place.
The issues are:
A wrong does not make a right;
An end does not always justify the means;
Murder is forbidden.
These are the core principles from which everything derives, so it's there you should be looking. Were it not for these principles, there would be no discussion.
This is not a case of taking human life, it is a case of saving one rather than losing two.
No it's not, and that's the point, that's an appeal to emotion and sentiment to mask the uncomfortable fact that it requires someone to kill a human being as a necessary part of attaining their objective. Then the question is whether it is morally acceptable to kill one person to save another, especially when the death of the other is far from certain.
If you're suggesting that the nun's decision was the issue, and it was right
then it would always be right, but there are many cases where mothers have chosen to go to full term with their pregnancy,
contrary to all medical advice to take the easy option and abort, fully aware of the risk involved, and delivered a healthy child and survived. Were they wrong?
Furthermore many times mothers have given the express instruction: 'if it comes to it, save the child'. Is that wrong?
There is also the question of responsibility. The mother was instrumental in bringing about conception, after all. The child, on the other hand, had no say in the matter, and now appears to be the victim of the piece.
To disregard the rights of one human being, and defend the right of another to kill said person, and furthermore render the perpetrator of the act of infanticide as somehow the victim of an injustice, makes no moral or logical sense to me whatsoever.
The claim 'there was nothing else I could do' does not stand.
"The patient in question was a pregnant woman whose pulmonary hypertension made it a virtual certainty that both she and the fetus would die if the pregnancy was carried to term."
That is the opinion of someone with a self-declared antipathy to the Church. Reported elsewhere, the phrase 'virtual certainty' is not used.
It was 'a virtual certainty' that Stephen Hawking would die within three years of his diagnosis with motor neurone disease in 1962 ...
We were told it was a 'virtual certainty' that our 3rd child would die because we elected for a home delivery ... and she's still around 19 years later ...
The ex-nun knew that both mother and child would die.
She knew no such thing, and nor do you. Again you're letting your emotions run away with you. That's the problem with gossip. The real issues are overlooked, and the truth invariably gets lost somewhere along the way.
She also knew the moral teaching of the Church whom she is supposed to represent. Again, if she feels she cannot do so, then she should cease to act in that capacity. I presume she had intelligence enough to work out what would result from her actions.
I, too, see this Catholic doctrine as being senseless, and I commend her for rejecting senseless fundamentalism that the Catholic Church had forced upon her.
You are entitled to your opinion.
There is no evidence of anything being 'forced upon her' other than in your own imagination. So this comment is somewhat ignorant and fatuous — had it been true, she would not have gone down the path she has, would she?
I commend her for being a role model for others to be willing to reject Catholic doctrine when they feel it is necessary.
Really. Why am I not surprised.
On previous occasions you have pointed out that the difference between our traditions is that yours does not require anyone to believe anything ... doctrine is a matter of personal opinion, and in that sense then truth is negotiable. I have always found this strange, from a tradition that supposedly declares "there is no religion higher than truth".
The point however is that in our tradition we regard truth as an objective reality, objective reality being a truth as perceived by the community, not a subjective determination. That might go some way to help you understand why we treat such matters as we do.
Please join me in commending her for what she did.
On an argument that avoids the issue, and rather relies on sentimentalism, flawed logic and a well-evidenced antipathy towards Catholicism, something you have professed before to not know in detail, shot through with offense and insult?
Hardly, that would be a very foolish thing to do. That would be the blind following the blind. I'm still waiting for at least one jot of reasoned argument, one ray of light in the heat and smoke of your responses.
Are you saying her willingness to reject Catholic fundamentalism (and even lose her job over it) is sensational?
No. It is you who is sensationalising. I would have thought that acting in a manner that is in direct contradiction of one's terms of contract can only result in a termination of said contract — that's not sensationalism, that's plain common sense. I wonder why anyone should express surprise, or indeed bother to post about it here.
Again, 'fundamentalism' is your opinion ... it would serve you better to try and discern the difference between moral principle and your own opinions. Or find a moral theologian willing to discuss the matter with you, rather than rest on what, I do not know. It might also go some way towards explaining why you get so emotional, angry and offended when someone doesn't agree with you.
So let me offer again:
Can an intrinsic evil act produce good? and
Under what circumstances can one be justified in taking a human life?
Murder is forbidden.
Without addressing these issues, any discussion of issues
subsequent to the moral principle are destined to get nowhere.
By way of example, let me use your own argument to demonstrate why abortion should be condemned outright. Figures cited are from from
a medical website:
Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States each year. More than 40% of all women will end a pregnancy by abortion at some time in their reproductive lives.
Currently, there are about 1.2 million abortions are performed each year in the United States.
In spite of the introduction of newer, more effective, and more widely available birth control methods, more than half of the 6 million pregnancies occurring each year in the United States are considered unplanned by the women who are pregnant. Of these unplanned pregnancies, about half end in abortion.
So when 'unplanned' becomes 'inconvenient', we have the figure of one and one half million unborn children killed, every year in the US.
Following your logic, there is an argument to assert that abortion is a moral wrong and should be made illegal. No doubt a few people might die as a result of complications during pregnancy, but this figure would be offset by the 1.5 million who would in effect be saved.
Or, perhaps, a significant number of pregnancies would be avoided by those who took more care not to get pregnant, the option of abortion not being freely available. In which case, once again, the killing of the embryo would likewise be avoided.
Thomas
