Nicaragua Since Abortion Ban
The Guardian of the U.K. recently published an article claiming 82 deaths from botched abortions since Nicaragua completely banned abortion. Vox Nova was linked at another web site that is supportive of abortion rights on this issue. As a general reminder, I should note that Vox Nova does not have corporate positions. The views expressed on Vox Nova simply reflect the views of the authors of the individual pieces. I think I am safe however in asserting that none of us are joyed at the deaths of these women.
Having said that, the article as near I can tell doesn’t bother sourcing its claim of 82 deaths outside of ‘advocacy groups’. The article doesn’t really improve. We are met with two anecdotes in the story. One anecdote is of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. The other anecdote is of a woman with an unstated health condition that pregnancy will apparently aggravate. That woman received a clandestine abortion and lived. The first woman is told that no doctors will perform abortions for fear of the law. (As a parenthetical note, in the wake of the Quindlin challenge, I should add that the law provides sentences for up to two years in prison for a woman who gets an abortion. The abortionist would receive 3 to 5 years.) The first woman thus chooses a couple women from her village to perform the abortion and ends up dead in the process.
Asked for our opinions on the matter, I will offer my own:
- Where medical alternatives exist for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies, women need to be encouraged to seek those treatments. I will leave aside the question of whether direct abortion can be sought in the matter of ectopic pregnancies. I am of the negative opinion. Regardless, the extension of Nicaragua’s ban to therapeutic abortions was done under the belief that treatments were available that meant there was no need for such abortions. Having acted under such a belief, Nicaragua’s medical establishment should provide accordingly.
- I do not find compelling the argument we need to legalize and make safe an operation because it is unsafe when done illegally. If one believes such an operation should be legal, one should argue it be made legal on its own merits.
- In as much as people do not see sex as belonging to marriage and procreation, they will see pregnancy as a condition rather than conditions with pregnancy. If feminists put half the effort they put into making sure women can end their pregnancy into treating the conditions that can occur with pregnancy, we could significantly reduce the mortality rate from pregnancy. Feminists should keep in mind that quite a number of women do see abortion as a death sentence, even if it saves their own life.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Where medical alternatives exist for the treatment of ectopic pregnancies, women need to be encouraged to seek those treatments. I will leave aside the question of whether direct abortion can be sought in the matter of ectopic pregnancies. I am of the negative opinion.
So what would you suggest doctors do in the case of ectopic pregnancy?
Regardless, the extension of Nicaragua’s ban to therapeutic abortions was done under the belief that treatments were available that meant there was no need for such abortions. Having acted under such a belief, Nicaragua’s medical establishment should provide accordingly.
They are acting accordingly — and women are dying. There is no doubt that pregnancy can be dangerous. It can kill women. There are conditions where the only way to save the pregnant woman is to terminate the pregnancy. Saying that they “should provide accordingly” doesn’t actually say anything.
I do not find compelling the argument we need to legalize and make safe an operation because it is unsafe when done illegally. If one believes such an operation should be legal, one should argue it be made legal on its own merits.
But that’s part of the merits of the argument. There are all kinds of things that we think should be legal because something worse results when we make it illegal. Examples: Alcohol consumption and sale; needle exchange programs; etc. And we do make the argument for legal abortion “on its merits.” This is just one aspect of that.
If feminists put half the effort they put into making sure women can end their pregnancy into treating the conditions that can occur with pregnancy, we could significantly reduce the mortality rate from pregnancy. Feminists should keep in mind that quite a number of women do see abortion as a death sentence, even if it saves their own life.
We do. We agitate for universal health care, for access to affordable contraception, for choice in childbirth, and for broader gender equality, which impacts medicine in myriad ways. But many of us aren’t doctors, so it doesn’t make sense to tell us to put our efforts into “treating the conditions that can occur with pregnancy.” Advocating for rights is something that individual citizens can do; treating pregnancy-related complications isn’t. So your argument is a little silly.
And I’m sure there are some women who see abortion as a death sentence, even if it saves their own life. They should be allowed to take that belief into account when making medical decisions for themselves — no one here is saying that a woman must undergo an abortion, even for self-preservation. We’re just saying that women deserve to choice to save themselves.
Jill-
It is my understanding that the surgery required to address an ectopic pregnancy (in the fallopian tube) is not an abortion because by the time the surgery is performed the child has already died. Am I wrong about this? See, e.g.,
http://www.rightremedy.org/tracts/9
Also, even if I am mistaken, it seems to me that the intent behind the surgey matters. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the purpose of the surgery is to save the mother’s life, not to kill the unborn child, which, even if still alive, has zero chance of being born. In short, my understanding is that the surgery needed to address ectopic pregnancies in no way can be considered an abortion.
I would, however, be interested in hearing what others, much more knowledagble about this issue, have to say.
The story implies the only available option was an abortion. For the doctors to send her on her way claiming to be unable to do anything is not consistent with the legislature claiming there are treatment alternatives outside abortion. Either the doctors acted incorrectly, or the legislature is mistaken. As regards ectopic pregnancy specificly, a salpingectomy would not be a direct abortion and would preserve the woman from risk of death. As for there being situations where abortion is the only way to save a woman’s life, the Nicaragua legislature acted under the belief that this wasn’t the case. I’m personally not qualified to make medical judgements, so I will assume the Nicaraguans were informed in their judgements.
In regards to alcohol sales and such, there is certainly room within Catholic thought for not legislating against all evils. Direct abortion however is a gravely and intrinsically evil act. In light of tradition and particularly Veritas Splendor, I don’t see how one could fit direct abortion with in the principle of toleration. I can see how others could see such to be a compelling argument.
I certainly wouldn’t demand feminists speak outside their competence. Obstetrics is outside my competence, so I have stayed with the judgements of others there. This does not change the fact that the desire for the availability of direct abortion is antithetical to many women. There are many women who do not believe direct abortion is empowering or serving their interests. Rather than argue under the mantle of abortion advocacy, feminists are arguing under the mantle of womanhood. Having access to contraception and abortion are not necessities or even conveniences for many women. This is why I noted it as the consequence of seeing sex outside marriage and procreation.
Alexham, your understanding is wrong, at least according to widely accepted Catholic theology. The easiest way to end an ectopic pregnancy is to administer a drug that flushes out the fertilized egg. According to pro-life Catholics, however, that is a “direct abortion.” M.Z. Forrest lists “salpingectomy” as an option, I suspect intentionally obscuring what a salpingectomy actually is — it’s the removal of the entire fallopian tube.
The justification goes like this: An ectopic pregnancy, which is where a fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus, is doomed. It will never become a viable pregnancy, and there is no way to make it a viable pregnancy. But since life begins at conception, the fertilized egg is alive and it would be wrong to kill it by removing it. However, if you “treat” the condition by removing the woman’s entire fallopian tube then you still kill the fertilized egg, but you can pretend like killing it wasn’t the point. It’s “indirect.”
It also seriously compromises her future fertility, doesn’t save the fertilized egg and is a more complicated and dangerous procedure, but I suppose that doesn’t matter.
This does not change the fact that the desire for the availability of direct abortion is antithetical to many women. There are many women who do not believe direct abortion is empowering or serving their interests.
And they are welcome to believe that. They are also welcome to never get abortions, and to think abortion is wrong. However, their view that abortion isn’t empowering doesn’t justify illegalizing it.
There are lots of things that I don’t think are empowering. There are lots of things that I don’t think are necessities or conveniences for me. There are lots of things that I think are bad for women as a class and for the human race as a whole. Doesn’t mean I want to outlaw them for everyone else.
Jill, surely you wish to outlaw at least some of those things you think are bad for the human race as a whole, even if you do not wish to outlaw all of them. What criteria do you employ when you form an opinion about such things?
Could I get a straight yes or no answer from anyone here to the following question: Do you or do you not oppose abortion when the life of the mother is at stake? Despite the rather silly sophistry you display here, there is no treatment for tubal pregnancy that does not involve the death of the embryo. There is no chance for the embryo to survive to a late enough gestational age for it to be born live. Even if one accepts the absolutely ridiculous assumption that a single celled organism is the moral equivalent of an adult human, there is simply no possibility of saving the embryo. Why not save the person who can be saved?
Nor is tubal pregnancy the only situation in which the mother’s life is at stake. Most forms of ectopic pregnancy are fatal to both mother and embryo or fetus unless treated. And numerous medical conditions from pulmonary hypertension to a variety of cardiac abnormalities make completion of a pregnancy an iffy prospect, at best. Some cancers may be stimulated by pregnancy and, of course, treating a cancer during pregnancy is complicated and often leads to sub-optimal results. So, the bottom line: Do you care more about punishing women or about maximizing the number of lives that can be saved? If the latter, then you should be in favor of legalizing abortion.
Diane-
I oppose abortion in all instances, as the practice is inherently evil and never morally licit.
I hope that answers your question.
Maximizing the number of lives saved by legalizing abortion? That only works if one assumes that the child in the womb is not a life worthy of being saved, a separate individual. This type of “reasoning” is of course why 20% of pregancies end in this country with a dead child. So much for maximizing the number of lives saved.
These death reports dehumanize the other party involved in the illegal abortion, namely the unborn child. How many unborn died in these illegal abortions? That’s also a relevant number.
Its already started:
“We are punishing women….”
“assuming that a single-celled organism is human ,is a ridiculous assumption…”
Ladies, can we please argue logically without the emotional baggage. Thanks.
Kevin,
I don’t think expressing remorse over the deaths of women receiving abortions trivializes or dehumanizes the unborn. I don’t think it should be a controlling factor in determining policy, as I stated above.
Dianne,
I do not support abortion. The distinction between killing and allowing death is not sophistry. While I believe people can disagree whether a given act is in either category, I do not believe one can justly dismiss the exercise as sophistry.
I have the greatest respect for women. I believe they are free moral agents capable of acting justly and in submission to the Lord.
I oppose abortion in all instances
It does. It means that allowing women to die in horrible pain as their fallopian tubes, stretched past the point of no return, burst, leading to peritonitis. Have you ever had appendicitis? Imagine knowing that you will die because someone said that your appendix was worth more, morally, than you. It also means that you favor allowing women with pulmonary hypertension to slowly suffocate as their pregnancy progresses and puts an increased strain on her lungs until they simply can not take in enough oxygen to allow her to survive. It tells me that you are ok with watching a woman go from having an easily curable breast cancer to one that has spread throughout her body because she could not get the proper treatment in time*. It tells me that despite your supposed concern for life, you are not interested in saving life whenever possible. In all of the instances above and many others, it is not physically possible to save the life of the embryo. A person who was truly pro-life would acknowledge this and admit exceptions for life-threatening illnesses. Even if one accepts a blastulocyte without so much as differentiated cells muchless a brain as a person with the same rights as the living, thinking, independent woman carrying the embryo, it is surely a sin to allow two people to die when you could have saved one of them. Yet you refuse to allow those who can be saved be saved. Why? I can only imagine that it is hatred of women because it is clearly not love of fetal life that drives you.
*Note: Many breast cancers and other cancers can, in fact, be treated effectively during pregnancy and no one who is pregnant and reading this should be afraid to get a suspicious breast lump looked at for fear of having treatment that could damage the fetus. But not all. Occasionally, the cancer will be very sensitive to hormones and simply run amok during pregnancy. In those rare instances, an abortion followed by prompt treatment is the safest way to go.
The distinction between killing and allowing death is not sophistry.
Not saving a life when one can do so is the same as killing that person. Suppose, to use an old ethics quandry from college, that you were traveling through a small dictatorship. You happened to come upon two people who were about to be executed. The executioner sees you and recognizes you as a foreigner. This country has an ancient tradition that whenever a foreigner comes upon an execution he may, if he choses, execute one of the condemned and pardon the other. If you refuse then both will be exected. There is no way to save both and, no, you can’t shoot the executioner instead. Well, you can, but there are enough soldiers standing around such that that act will simply result in the death of both prisoners and yourself. What do you do? I would say, kill one. I wouldn’t LIKE it, I might wish that I’d never come on this situation, that the country was different, that an asteroid would fall from the sky and kill us all, removing the dilemma, but the only course of action that I can see that would result in any survivors is to execute one person.
Or, an alternate scenario: Suppose someone you know needs a bone marrow transplant. No other treatment for his disease gives him any chance of surviving more than, say, three months. None of his siblings match him adequately, so he goes to the international bone marrow registry to search for a possible unrelated donor. He’s in luck: one person–and only one–matches him. That person is contacted. Remember, people who are in the IBMR volunteered to have their HLA information added to the registry. No one is compelled to be a marrow donor (though perhaps they should be? That would result in more matches and so more survivors). Nonetheless, the person in question refuses: he has changed his mind, the donation sounds too painful, he doesn’t want to do it. Should he be forced, legally, to donate? Suppose he changes his mind again and decides, after all, he can do peripheral blood stem cell collection. Unfortunately, he turns out to be allergic to the medication needed to stimulate his bone marrow to allow the collection. Should he be compelled to continue the medication even though he is going to die of anaphylactic shock before the cells can be collected, so that neither he nor the recipient will be able to survive?
Dianne, the Church values life, all human life, including the life of the mother which is why I think people get so angry when it is a situation where the baby’s life is pitted against the mother’s life.I will be sloppy here and not cite sources because I don’t have a lot of time & I hope someone more thorough can cite the source for me, but in answer to your question, the Church would first do all things to respect the lives of BOTH woman and child because they BOTH have value (very different from those who believe a woman can abort her child, the child may have some tiny value, but not enough to save).
HOWEVER, when it is a situation where both will die unless something happens, it is ok to save the life of the mother. The goal is not to kill the kid. The goal is to save the mother. So in that case, the doctors have no choice but to remove the threat to the mother’s life. This topic became a subject at the Vatican awhile back during the canonization of woman doctor who had cancer and refused to have an abortion. Her child lived and the mother died. The Church said St. Gianna Molla went above and beyond what is expected of people in her situation. She was willing to lay down her life so that her child may live, which is heroic, but not something that most people would choose to do in the same circumstances.
While this is not my favorite news site in the least they do a good job explaining the Church’s teaching:”Following the principle of double effect, the church teaches it is morally acceptable to undergo treatment for a serious medical condition even if the therapy is potentially harmful, even lethal, to an unborn child.
The “bad effect” of harm or death occurring to the fetus is tolerated only as long as the aim of the medical intervention is to acquire the “good effect” of helping treat the patient.
For example, “It would be morally acceptable for a woman to ask to remove a cancerous womb” even if she were pregnant, explained Redemptorist Father Brian Johnstone, an Australian moral theologian at Rome’s Alphonsian Academy.
“If (the cancerous organ) is not removed, she will die and the fetus will die. The intention is not to kill the embryo, but to remove the cancer,” he said.” (from catholicnews.com)
Does that help you. Your answer is YES.
Donald: As many as 70% of conceptions result in spontaneous abortions before or shortly after implantation. What are you doing to save these “babies”? Do you donate to foundations dedicated to ending these early spontaneous abortions? Oops…there aren’t any. Perhaps you should start one. Do you lobby Congress to make ending spontaneous abortion a major priority of the NIH? Will you change fields, if you are not already a medical researcher, and dedicate your professional life to finding the cause of these abortions and finding a treatment for them? Because, frankly, until you do one or more of the above, I’m going to have a hard time taking your claim that you believe that every fertilized ovum is a person very seriously.
Dianne-
Part of the problem, I think, is that many medical claims made by those in the proabortion movement about the need to “save women’s lives” are really just a pretense for supporting abortion on demand. My understanding is that an abortion is never medically necessary (of course, part of this depends on how one defines an abortion, and I suspect that your definition of abortion is much more encompassing than mine). You, of course, claim that, in many instances, an abortion is safer than other procedures that wouldn’t kill the unborn child, but what you apparently fail to appreciate (or take into account) are the many health risks associated with having an abortion. Ironically, for all of the proabortion movement’s talk about caring for women’s lives and their health, y’all aren’t real big on informed consent in the abortion context. I wonder why that is?
HOWEVER, when it is a situation where both will die unless something happens, it is ok to save the life of the mother.
Not according to lawmakers in Nicaragua and a couple of other countries including Vatican City. That is the original point being addressed: that the law in Nicaragua illegalizes abortion even if the life of the mother is in danger–even if the embryo has no chance of being brought to term. No exceptions, no matter what. My expectation of a truly pro-life position is that these laws would be condemned vigorously as misguided and causing unnecessary deaths and suffering. They are not. Of course, I would also expect a person really worried about fetal life to spend more time on trying to prevent spontaneous abortion, which is a far more common threat to a blastulocyte than induced abortion, as I mentioned above, and I have yet to see a “pro-life” group with the slightest interest in that, so what do I know about pro-life groups’ motives and goals?
Dianne-
That you fail to appreciate the distinction between a naturally occurring event (albeit a tragic one), and the intentional taking of a life, speaks volumes.
My understanding is that an abortion is never medically necessary (of course, part of this depends on how one defines an abortion, and I suspect that your definition of abortion is much more encompassing than mine). You, of course, claim that, in many instances, an abortion is safer than other procedures that wouldn’t kill the unborn child,
So, perhaps you can explain to me how one can treat tubal pregnancy without abortion? The problem in tubal pregnancy is that the embryo (it will never live long enough to be a fetus) is implanted in a structure that can not stretch to accomedate the growing embryo and so will burst once it gets past a certain size. The safest treatment, in general, is to give methotrexate or a similar drug to stop the growth. The body will then reabsorb the embryo, leaving the tube and ovary intact, hence preserving fertility. A reasonable second choice is surgical removal of the tube or part of the tube. The more dangerous approach, which I assume you favor, is to allow the embryo to grow until the tube bursts and then try to clean out the peritoneum. In this instance, the tube and ovary will, of course, need to be removed and a total hysterectomy and bilateral salphingoopherectomy are not unusual. This is a major operation, undertaken on an emergency basis and has a high chance of killing the woman and an even higher chance of leaving her infertile.
Another scenario that I’ve mentioned several times: Pulmonary hypertension. In this condition, the blood pressure through the lungs–which is very low in healthy people–is unusually high. This results in strain on the heart, which has to push against an unexpected pressure, and the lungs, which have to fight to intake oxygen under these conditions. Pregnancy increases the blood pressure in the lungs. In most women that’s no big deal: makes exercising a little more difficult, but otherwise no problem. In a woman with PH, it is deadly. She WILL, unless the embryo is removed, die of congestive heart failure and lung failure, gasping for breath, before the fetus gets past the first trimester (though it can make it to the fetal stage, if the PH isn’t too severe). How would you treat that without abortion?
but what you apparently fail to appreciate (or take into account) are the many health risks associated with having an abortion.
Such as? Cite medical sources for your evidence of harm, please.
That you fail to appreciate the distinction between a naturally occurring event (albeit a tragic one), and the intentional taking of a life
So, if, through a tragic but completely natural sequence of events–a new virus, for example, 70% of newborns were suddenly dying in the first two weeks of life, you would just shrug and say “c’est la vie” and not worry about it? Because if you’re going to claim that every conceptus is a baby then that’s just what you are doing. If you really believe your own claim, which I highly doubt.
Dianne-
First, while I will be happy to offer you references re: the serious mental and physical health risks associated with having an abortion, I suspect that doing so will do little to change your mind. I will give you a source, and then you will claim that the source is biased. I’ve been involved in debates like this too many times.
As for a tubal pregnancy, it is my understanding that removing the tube or part of the tube, if necessary to save the woman’s life, is not an abortion, and thus is licit.
As for the “abortion is safer” angle that you’re trying to push, these concerns cannot outweigh the taking of an innocent life.
Finally, I am not suggestintg that the resaerch you advocate re: miscarriages is a bad idea, or that it shouldn’t be funded. What I am saying is that morally there is a big difference between an abortion and a miscarriage.
First, while I will be happy to offer you references re: the serious mental and physical health risks associated with having an abortion, I suspect that doing so will do little to change your mind. I will give you a source, and then you will claim that the source is biased.
Try Pubmed as a source. Not every journal listed in pubmed is exactly top tier, but the info there at least has been reviewed by someone in the field, although they do let a few non-reviewed sources through.
As for a tubal pregnancy, it is my understanding that removing the tube or part of the tube, if necessary to save the woman’s life, is not an abortion,
Huh? Removing the embryo (and surrounding tube) is somehow NOT abortion? Do explain that one, please.
Finally, I am not suggestintg that the resaerch you advocate re: miscarriages is a bad idea, or that it shouldn’t be funded. What I am saying is that morally there is a big difference between an abortion and a miscarriage.
Unless you are saying that you are making research into reducing the spontaneous abortion rate a higher priority than ending induced abortion or you are saying that your grounds for opposing abortion are something other than “life begins at conception”, then you are saying that the death, of “natural causes” of up to 70% of babies is not as big a deal to you as the death–by murder or manslaughter, admittedly a more morally disturbing event–is not a big deal. Myself, if I believed that 70% of babies were dying of an unknown disease, I’d worry about that first and the murder rate second, but if that is not the position you take then it is not the position you take. But I don’t see how someone indifferent to the very early death of 70% of the population can possibly be called “pro-life.”
Dianne-
I will try to address your other points soon, but in the meantime, here’s a reference which explains the Catholic Church’s position re: ectopic pregnancies in some detail:
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
Diane,
Not only is saving the woman’s life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy acceptible from the point of view of Catholic moral teaching, but it one of _the_ standard examples of what is called the “principle of double effect” which is, the moral principle whereby one may perform one action (remove a falopian tube to which an embyo has attached) with the intention of saving the woman’s life, despite forseeing the inevitable result that this will result in the death of the embryo. If the law in Nicaragua fails to recognize that distinction, it is not in line with Catholic teaching.
On your other post, Catholics are not ignorant as to the fact that many pregnancies result in natural miscarriage. However, the Catholic belief is not that it is immoral for an unborn child to die any more than that it is immoral for a person to die of old age. Rather, the Catholic belief is that it is immoral to deliberately end the life of another through one’s own action.
The link Alexham posted is to a very good explanation double effect as it relates to falopian pregnancy, which states things with rather more precision than my couple sentences above. To quote a few key points:
· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]
· 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.
On one hand, there can be no direct attack on the child (direct abortion) to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, the life of the mother is equally valuable and she must receive appropriate treatment. It might be that the only available remedy saves the life of the mother but, while not a direct abortion, brings about the unintended effect of the death of the child. Morally speaking, in saving the life of the mother, the Church accepts that the child might be lost.
The Paul VI Institute at Creighton University does a good deal of research in preventing spontaneous abortion (natural miscarriage).
My wife has recived hormone therapy for 2 of her pregnancies to prevent spontaneous abortion, and it was succesful in both instances. It is simply untrue that no work is being done in this area.
ben: Congratulations and I’m glad that the therapy was effective for your wife. However, I would be fairly suprised if the treatments (and the ongoing research) were directed toward preventing pre-implanation spontaneous abortion. I am unaware of any research in this area. That doesn’t, of course, mean that it is not being done, but if a significant part of the US believes that life begins at conception then preventing pre-implantation spontaneous abortions should be a major public health initiative, being pushed by large segments of the population. Quite a bit of time and money are spent trying to prevent or treat such relatively uncommon causes of neonatal mortality as birth defects and SIDS. Why aren’t there major initiatives to prevent spontaneous abortion? Why isn’t the March of Dimes on it? Why doesn’t the Vatican, which has a number of active research programs in various areas, make it their highest priority in medical research? Where is the National Institute for the Prevention of Spontaneous Abortion? (NISPA? Yech…let’s call it the National Institute for the Prevention of Miscarriage, NIPM–that sounds a bit better.)
no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.
Hmm…perhaps I’m being slow, but I haven’t yet gotten an explanation that makes any sense to me as to how removal of the affected fallopian tube and related embryo can be considered anything other than a direct abortion. Then, too, there are instances where the pregnancy is endangering the woman’s life, but the uterus and embryo or fetus are not themselves diseased, i.e. pulmonary hypertension. What is the suggested course of action in such cases? Only a direct abortion will result in the woman living more than a few months after conception and there is simply no way to bring the embryo to term. Further advances in medicine may someday make this particular example obsolete–ironically, on of the best current treatments is viagra–but there will always be situations in which the woman is not physiologically able to handle a pregnancy, even though her uterus and embryo or fetus are healthy. What then? Let them both die to keep our hands clean?
However, the Catholic belief is not that it is immoral for an unborn child to die any more than that it is immoral for a person to die of old age.
Immoral? Maybe not. But a public health problem? Undeniably. if 70% of the population died of old age, that would probably be called “success”. If 70% of the population died within 2 weeks of being born, that would be called a public health disaster and steps taken accordingly. I would expect it to be the top priority of the NIH and the major focus of private foundations. Yet you’re telling me that the official Catholic position is to be indifferent to what the Church states is the death of 70% of babies before they so much as implant in the uterus? I don’t believe it. I don’t believe any group of people would be so indifferent to the lives of children. And, yes, ignoring such an epidemic, if you believe it is going on, is immoral.
Dianne,
You don’t seem to understand that for a great many people there is a distinction between killing and allowing to die. It may well be that a great number of people look only at the end. There is a death. In utilitarian and consequentialist ethical schemes, ther particualrities of a death are of secondary importance to the reality of the death itself. For those you are speaking with here, the moral question of how somone dies is of great importance. If they were willfully killed by another, there is a debt to justice. If they died naturally or accidently, then there was no moral evil committed.
If they were willfully killed by another, there is a debt to justice. If they died naturally or accidently, then there was no moral evil committed.
No one has directly answered Dianne’s question about pulmonary hypertension, but this quote leads me to believe that you think the pregnant woman’s death would be “natural” and so therefore you wouldn’t interfere. You would just let nature take its course, and although it would kill the woman and the fetus, it’s ok as long as it fits into your moral philosophy.
Is that right?
You don’t seem to understand that for a great many people there is a distinction between killing and allowing to die.
I understand. I just think it is, to some extent, wrong. The difference is one more of degree than kind, particularly when one can, with little effort or risk to oneself, save the person who would otherwise die.
If killing is wrong but allowing someone to die is perfectly ok, why should I think at all about Dafur? I assure you, I have never killed a single person in Dafur and have no intention of ever doing so. So shouldn’t I be able to ignore the situation entirely or even, say, invest in companies that make money off of Dafur and, possibly, contribute to the killings there? I am not killing anyone, only allowing them to die. True, they are dying unnatural deaths and someone is killing them, but that’s not my moral issue, is it?
Similarly, suppose I was eating at a restaurant and saw someone suddenly clutch his or her throat. I wouldn’t be in the least obligated to go over and attempt the Heimlich maneuver on them, right, because their death from choking would be completely “natural” and therefore no moral evil is being committed, even though I probably could keep them from dying by a very simple maneuver, right?
The decision of where to spend research money, whether public or private, is a moral and a political decision. Are you old enough to remember the 1980s? Remember ACT-Up and the controversy over whether enough was being done to find a cure for AIDS? If allowing people with AIDS to die a “natural death” had no moral consequences, then why did that controversy exist? If allowing people to die of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, etc has no moral significance, why did people argue that we were spending too much on HIV and diverting too much money away from these killers?
In my opinion, if you can stop a death from occurring and refuse to do so, that is morally not so different from killing. Inaction has moral significance as well as action. And allowing someone to die from a pregnancy gone wrong when they could be saved by an abortion is a morally significant act. Conversely, if every conceptus is a person–if, say, a supernatural soul is inserted into the fertilized egg at the moment of fertilization*–then abortion is only one way in which our society is doing wrong. We are also very, very badly wrong in not helping more of these microscopic people live past their first two weeks. We are wrong in not protecting them against twin canibalism, which results in a single, chimeric baby being born from two fertilized eggs. We are wrong in allowing the rhythm method, which tends to result in more failed implantations because any conceptions tend to take place at sub-optimal moments–to be used. Arguably, we are wrong to allow people to have sex at any time but the optimal for conception, because of the increased risk of failed pregnancy. You wouldn’t want to risk a baby’s dying just for your pleasure, would you? The fact that, as far as I know, no one, pro-life or pro-choice, worries about such things, seems to me to be significant, although perhaps only of the way people make moral choices.
*Actually, conception isn’t a unitary event either, but rather a process involving multiple steps and a certain time frame. Is it a person when the cell membranes fuse? When the zona pellicula alters to stop further sperm from coming in? When the pro-nuclei fuse? Just what do you mean by “conception”?
Wow!
That is a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid actually engaging the point!
I know that you have a consequentialist ethical system. All I’m trying to tell you is that you should take seriously that other people don’t.
The fact of the matter is that nearly everyone thinks there is a vast difference between failing to give the heimlich maneuver and shooting someone. Standing by and letting someone choke to death may be wrong, but it certainly isn’t worthy of a life sentence.
I’ve even encountered this same logic in pro-chioce arguments. The famous “violinst” argument depends on it–the premise there is that abortion is an allowing to die rather than a killing.
Why don’t you engage those with whom you disagree in an actual dialogue? Instead of presuming our ethical system has no room to care for those suffering from disease and natural death. why don’t you simply ask the question: “what are the duties to preserve life? and how are these different from the duties not to kill?” That might get you some understanding.
But it seems like you don’t want to listen and understand. You just want to argue.
We should work to preserve life as much as we can according to our station and circumstances. It is one of a complex nuber of duties that sometimes conflict with one another (even withing our duty to reserve life there is some gradation, great sacrifices must be made to ensure people are fed–less sacrifice is required to ensure they get cancer surgery). The duty not to kill is a higher duty than the one to preserve life. We would expect people to be willing to sacrifice other goods–in some cases the good of ones own life–in adhering to the duty not to kill.