CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - moral theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17th April 2009, 01:03 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,593
Default abortion

There are two types of abortion:

1. direct abortion which is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Direct abortion is not justified even to save the life of the mother. With direct abortion, the act is to directly kill the prenatal. This act is a type of murder and is not justified by any intention no matter how good, nor by any circumstance no matter how dire.

2. indirect abortion which is sometimes moral, depending on intention and circumstance. Indirect abortion does not directly kill the prenatal, but the prenatal dies as an unintended consequence of an act that is directly aimed at treating the mother to save her life.

The terms direct and indirect mean morally direct and morally indirect, not necessarily physically direct or physically indirect.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17th April 2009, 05:44 PM
GCMfriend GCMfriend is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 68
Default

Ron,

It seems like your reasoning for the "indirect" type of abortion is similar to circumstances where the use of contraception could be moral.

Could you give an example where indirect abortion occurs, and maybe elaborate on intention? I had always thought that abortion - no matter what the circumstances - was immoral, although perhaps I'm not understanding the distinction.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17th April 2009, 08:03 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph View Post
It seems like your reasoning for the "indirect" type of abortion is similar to circumstances where the use of contraception could be moral.

Could you give an example where indirect abortion occurs, and maybe elaborate on intention? I had always thought that abortion - no matter what the circumstances - was immoral, although perhaps I'm not understanding the distinction.
This teaching on direct and indirect abortion is the teaching of the Church.

Pope John Paul II:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops--who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine--I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."

An example of indirect abortion: A woman has cancer and is in the early stages of pregnancy. If she attempts to wait until the prenatal is viable and can be delivered, the cancer will kill them both. If she accepts the cancer treatment, the treatment will likely save her life, but also will kill the prenatal. The death of the prenatal is not intended; the only intention is to save the life of the mother (when the prenatal's life cannot be saved). The act itself is a medical treatment of an illness, which is moral. In the circumstances, the good consequences outweighs the bad consequences because the prenatal's life cannot be saved by any means.

So indirection abortion, in some cases such as the above example, can be moral. Whereas directly killing the prenatal for any reason is always immoral.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18th April 2009, 05:16 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron, was the term "Indirect Abortion" used by JPII?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18th April 2009, 11:54 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
Ron, was the term "Indirect Abortion" used by JPII?
I don't know if he has ever used that term (not in the document I cited above). But this is not speculative theology, and not my own idea.

Indirect abortion is often cited as an example of the principle of double effect. This is the traditionally used term 'indirect abortion'.

The reason that direct abortion is always immoral is that it is murder:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium."
Evangelium Vitae, JP2

The reason that indirect abortion is not always immoral is that it is not a direct and voluntary killing. The action must be moral, such as a medical treatment for cancer given to the mother. The intention must be good; so one cannot intend the death of the prenatal. The good consequences must outweigh the bad consequences.

Also, the teaching of the Church is not merely the teachings of the Magisterium, but the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. The Living Tradition teaches this doctrine that indirect abortion (and any indirect killing) is not intrinsically evil, and so may be moral.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 19th April 2009, 06:48 PM
zouxi zouxi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 392
Default

Ron, at which stage the fetus becomes a human soul according to the catholic church? i read in a book that it is considered a human soul after 3 weeks of pregnency, however our local priest told me that a human soul is created at the very same second of the conception? is it ture?

thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19th April 2009, 08:38 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zouxi View Post
Ron, at which stage the fetus becomes a human soul according to the catholic church? i read in a book that it is considered a human soul after 3 weeks of pregnency, however our local priest told me that a human soul is created at the very same second of the conception? is it ture?

thank you.

Many years ago, there was an on-going debate among theologians as to when 'ensoulment' occurs. There were even several Popes who gave differing decisions on when 'ensoulment' occurs (i.e. at how many weeks after conception). However, in recent times, having a much better understanding of human reproductive biology, the common theological opinion is that the body and soul are created at the same time, at conception.

This view, body and soul created at the same time, is essential to the dogma of the Incarnation, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And since Christ is like us in all things but sin, and Mary is even more like us (not being God), by their two examples, I conclude that, for all human life, body and soul are created simultaneously at conception. So I would consider this view to be, at this time, the teaching of the Church and not merely a theological opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19th April 2009, 09:47 PM
zouxi zouxi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 392
Default

Thank you indeed Ron, this helped me a lot
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19th April 2009, 11:42 PM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default An Obvious Truth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
This view, body and soul created at the same time, is essential to the dogma of the Incarnation, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And since Christ is like us in all things but sin, and Mary is even more like us (not being God), by their two examples, I conclude that, for all human life, body and soul are created simultaneously at conception. So I would consider this view to be, at this time, the teaching of the Church and not merely a theological opinion.

This is the essence of the argument against abortion. I do not understand how anyone can fail to blieve this Truth.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20th April 2009, 05:45 AM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I remember being taught that all souls are created before conception? That we were all in heaven prior to conception?

Ron, did I just make this up?

On another Note:

Because of the negative associations with the word Abortion today I think when people hear "indirect abortion" they dont really know what that means. It gets confusing to them. People today think Abortion means to intentionally kill and remove a baby from the womb. They might be saying, "How can you indirectly intentionally kill the baby???"

The actual definition of Abortion in its TRUE NATURAL sense is when the Body expels the baby from the uterus. (before man decided to invade uteruses). (ie miscarriages)

I'm not sure that I would ever even use the term "indirect abortion" because of the above statement.

If a women loses a baby due to medical treatment not for the purpose of killing her baby, then, to me, this does not even come into the abortion argument!

If a woman had cancer, its still a mortal sin to intentionally kill the baby first even though he/she might die at a later date. Same with any terminal condition any baby might have before being born. You have the baby and let God take the baby on his terms.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.