Today I thought I'd cover two questions on the Western world's most debated issue:
Dear Apologist, What do I say to a person who insists that he is "Pro-Choice" and not "Pro-Abortion"?
The debate surrounding abortion is filled with euphemisms. Euphemisms try to mask uncomfortable truths with words which soften the rhetoric. Most people feel an innate unease with abortion because they intuitively know it kills an innocent living human. So they don't want to be called "Pro-Abortion". But at the same time, these people have been told that abortion is a private matter and the only practical option for desperate women. So they don't want to be opposed to abortion either. Thus, the label "Pro-Choice" is used as a supposedly neutral option by which an individual who is “personally opposed” to abortion may nonetheless support its legality. In this way the person eases the tension in his conscience.
The problem is that despite intentions, this position still makes a strong statement. Imagine a politician saying he is personally opposed to child abuse, but nonetheless thinks it should be legal. Such a person would be rightly driven from the public square in contempt. People would instantly see his position is not neutral - it speaks volumes regarding his opinion of children’s rights. In the same fashion, saying you believe abortion should be legal implies: 1) You don't believe pre-birth humans have any rights and 2) The law should not protect them from violent assault.
Most “Pro-Choice” people don’t realize this - and you should point it out. Their position is not morally neutral because it endorses a legal regime which denies people their basic human rights. So you should ask why these humans shouldn’t be treated as humans. As Catholics we are called to give a consistent witness - both in our private and public lives - to the rights of the unborn. [CCC 2270-2275]
Dear Apologist, Is abortion allowed in cases where a mother’s life is in danger?
To answer this question, we first have to understand what we mean by “abortion”. In modern parlance, “abortion” refers to a procedure in which a baby growing inside a mother is intentionally and directly assaulted – either with surgical equipment or chemicals – resulting in its death. Regarding this action, the Catechism states: “The Church affirms the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” [CCC 2271]. So the answer is no. Direct abortion is not allowed in any circumstance, for any reason, ever.
But what if a woman in mortal danger? Can doctors do anything? Yes, they can intervene. Regarding these cases, bioethicists would point you to what is called the “Principle of Double Effect”. This refers to how sometimes achieving a good effect requires by necessity the toleration of a bad effect. The PoDE states that an action with a negative side-effect is licit when: 1) The good and bad effect are inseparable. 2) The two effects are proportionate. 3) The bad effect is not used as a means to an end. 4) The bad effect is not desired. For an example, think of how we tolerate the degenerative effects of chemotherapy to fight cancer.
Utilizing this principle, doctors can treat grave health issues during pregnancy as long as the operation does not entail a direct, intentional assault on the child. This is true even if the child does not survive the treatment. What makes the difference ethically is that the death did not involve a direct physical assault. For more, please visit the National Catholic Bioethics Center at ncbcenter.org
No comments:
Post a Comment