Actually, that’s not what “direct abortion” means, although I appreciate that you think that I don’t understand Catholic moral theology. Do you recall the case of the abortion at St Joseph’s in Phoenix in 2009? In that case, no one ‘intended’ an abortion, according to the ethics committee at the hospital. Yet, the local ordinary decided that it was a “direct abortion.” As it turns out, “direct abortion” speaks to action, regardless of the stated intent of the parties involved.
Please note, and this is most important and discussed by Fr Serpa, that it discussed “deliberate” (ie intended) abortions:
[quote]As is known, abortion is “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth”.
It’s ironic that you’re quoting Evangelium Vitae (after all, that’s what footnote 45 is alluding to). Perhaps you might consider reading what paragraph 58 of that encyclical says, considering that footnote 45 is quoting this paragraph:
It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health
So, JP II speaks of the definition of abortion; yet, he does not allow for abortion even for “certain important values such as [the mother’s] own health.” :shrug:
Again, it is not relevant to unintended miscarriage as a secondary effect.
If DP had said that intention or secondary effect were relevant, I’d buy your argument. It doesn’t. It makes a flat assertion: interception is abortive and gravely sinful. If you want to read into that an exception for intention, that says many things. Of course… it doesn’t say that this is what the CDF was stating.
It is only your misreading of DP here, as addressed above and by Fr Serpa.
LOL! Really, now… is that what you want to assert? I’ll give you a chance to reconsider that claim…
If you’re still convinced that they were interpreting DP, then please allow me to gently point out to you that both Fr Serpa’s and Michelle’s comments – which you attempt to use to prove your point – precede the publication of Dignitatis Personae! Are you really trying to convince us that their comments interpret a document that hadn’t yet been written? That would be quite the feat…
Only intended/deliberate abortions are a moral evil.
No. All abortions are an intrinsic evil. If you want to discuss culpability, then that’s a different discussion. But, if you want to talk about objective evil, you cannot claim that abortion is sometimes objectively ok…
Would you say that a woman who has a deficient luteal phase (and thus unable to sustain a pregnancy) has a moral obligation to abstain from sex?
Apples and oranges. The physical lack of ability to sustain a pregnancy is not at all the same case as the choice to undertake a course of therapy that leads to abortifacient effects.