Revisiting Sr. McBride vs. Olmstead hospital abortion case

Ah! That makes sense now. A logically consistent view.

1 Like

You don’t need Mount Sinai, just go to a Methodist or Presbyterian hospital, pretty much any place but a Catholic hospital.

1 Like

Yep. Pretty much why some say it is OK to kill a fetus but not a 3 year old. Age, zip code, and appearance add worth.

Very easy to claim that when not faced with the situation. Try explaining to your surviving 5 children you won’t be around much longer. Id bet many would reconsider their position.

3 Likes

Appeals to sentimentality do not change the facts of a situation.

WHY would I say any different if faced with the situation than just posting here? My mind would not change. Children would be taken care of and understand why their mother would choose LIFE for all not just for herself.

But she didn’t choose life. That is what is stumping posters.

Ultimately both still die. She had the option of at least saving one.

3 Likes

I wonder how that would impact the children’s attitude to the Church that has mandated that their mother die instead of undergoing a procedure that may kill the baby.

My friend whose mother sacrificed her own life in order to bring my friend into the world, once told me that her older brothers and sisters often tell her that they wished that their mother was alive instead of her.

She suffers from survivor’s guilt.

Either way it’s not easy.

Disclaimer: Before anyone claims I am pro-abortion, let me assure you that I am not. Just processing and pondering the difficult decisions that can come up in life.

3 Likes

Abortion kills the baby 100% of the time unless it is a botched abortion.

I assure you I already know that.

What we are discussing is being caught in the horns of a dilemma.

To undergo a procedure that can kill a baby and the mother lives or do nothing so as not to harm the baby, but the mother and the baby both die.

1 Like

There is nothing intrinsically evil about doing a procedure that might kill a baby as a side effect. There is nothing intrinsically evil about doing one that might harm the baby. So I see another straw man, and Guy Fawkes Night draws near - where’s my lighter?

By killing the other.

I would recommend seeing what the Catholic bioethics would say.

1 Like

Who wouldn’t live either way.

1 Like

Doesn’t make it not murder.

I would like a second opinion here. It is not a proven fact that a direct abortion would have caused the St. Joseph patient to continue living where she would certainly have died otherwise. Pro-lifers frequently assert that it is never necessary to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I would like to know if that “never” means never. We may never know the exact facts of the case, but I think it is worth pointing out that it is highly disputed that direct abortions save lives.

Much like removing a fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy. As it is non-direct it somehow makes it an acceptable death.

Semantics.

4 Likes

Wrong. One does not fix an ectopic pregnancy by killing the child. It’s treated by removal of the damaged tube.

Yeah, that’s because direct killing is murder and not doing that thing is not murder.

I don’t understand why there being a fine line between what’s acceptable and what isn’t presents such a problem. Indirectly causing someone’s death with proportional reason is tragic but morally licit. Directly killing someone, no matter the reason, is morally wrong. Always. Direct vs indirect is what matters.

I understand the difference between direct and non. The damaged tube has the fetus in it. Still killing it.

But that argument is really just semantics. They are both killing the fetus.

3 Likes

But the death of the child is not required for the procedure to be carried out correctly. When the tube is removed, and the procedure is complete, the child may or may not be alive and it has no bearing on the procedure’s success.

In the case of the OP, the child’s death was the sole determining factor in the success of the procedure.

One is direct, one isn’t.

But they’re doing it in such a way that one is indirect and not intentional, and one is. I do not understand how this isn’t clear.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.