Michael P. O'Connor

Rob I do understand in the case of Life or Death of the mother (but I do belive that those are very rare now, and I am sure that they only make up about 1% to 5% of all abortions, I know I could be wrong with how much the make up but you know what I mean), also this is the LCMS postion also, see here (this is a link, I know it does not look like one but just click here to go to the page) for the synods statement on abortion (Also see this link for a further defence of the Synod’s position). When I think “No Exceptions, No Compromise” I think about abortion on demand, I would say no “No Exceptions, No Compromise” Now when the mothers life is in danger then she has an option, but also No greater love has anyone then one that lays down their life for another, but that now is in the womans court. Also with the fallopian-tube (and like) I don’t think the mother has a choice, the child would not be able to brought to term the child could never survive so we are at a point where 1 will die (abortion) or both will die (tring to bring the child to term) so we must have an abortion done there, no need in lossing 2 lives (I know I am not giving a woman a choice here eather but…)
When I talk against abortion I am always talking about abortion on demand.
I know my Roman Catholic friends will not agree with me but…

Are you telling me this person belived that 2 should die, does he belive 2 dieing is better then only one dieing? Unreal, is that person mental? (sorry I should not pass jugdement like that, but…)
Yes it is sad when any one dies, and it even sadder when you are in the position where you have to decided between one of 2 lives, and even worse when you are forced to cause one to die to prevent others to die.<>br/>
I do think we should err on the side that perserves life.

I know you know, but I like to be careful. Online communication is a lot less redundant than an eyeball QSO.

Everyone finds themselves in a nuanced position occasionally. I seem to be a galactic black hole of nuanced positions.

It’s annoying, even to me.

New Horizons probe is doing well, BTW.

I would say that a woman that would hurt herself to get an abortion, has other issues that need to be resoved.
I will admit I would love to see the day where abortion is illegal (except in the case of the mothers life is in danger) and you are right there are those that will not talk, untill eather 1) All abortions are legal or 2) free abortions for all.

As a Roman Catholic friend who is pro-life with none of the usual exceptions of rape, incest, or “health of th mother”, I have to put my two cents in, which you may find surprising. Actually, we do recognize something called the principle of double effect. Which means that, for example, a pregnant women with uterine cancer may have her uterus removed. This would be done to cure a serious pathology. It would have the unintended, but double effect of killing the unborn child. Removing a uterus is a very different procedure than an abortion. But in both cases the fetus will end up dead. But one is intended and morally impermissible. In the other case, the death of the fetus is unintended, not desired, but unavoidable and very sad. But permissible. There are some heroic self-sacrificing women who will forgo procedures for this and certain other conditions to try and deliver their baby alive at great risk to their life and health. I admire them. But I do not hold anybody to that heroic standard. Nor does the Catholic Church.

But to perform just an abortion? A procedure for which there is no medical justification? No. There is where I and the Church have to say no.

Now, where and how to apply the principle of double effect is the sharp end of this particular knife. There are four conditions that must be met for a particular action to be permissible:

1. The action contemplated must be in itself either ethically good or ethically indifferent.

2. The evil consequence not be directly intended.

3. The good result not be a direct causal result of the evil result.

4. The good result must be “proportionate to” the evil result

So, if the intention is to “end the pregnancy” it is never permissible. If the intent is to save the woman from uterine cancer (which is the usual example I’ve seen), it is permissible.

Apparently there is some disagreement among moral theologians about ectopic pregnancies. Not having a medical background, I don’t know.

As for me, “No Exceptions, No Compromise” on abortions is OK. Because to me a pregnant woman having uterine cancer and having her uterus removed does not constitute abortion to me. Such a woman does not go to an abortion clinic. She is not wanting to end her pregnancy. She is trying to stay alive. Ending the pregnancy is not the aim of the procedure.

However, that being said, there are those that try to milk this principle by saying making abortions permissible for “the health of the mother”. By which they mean that its OK to directly perform an abortion… to do nothing other than abort the fetus. This is never permissible. And they interpret “the health of the mother” as anything… “oh, she’s depressed. Get an abortion”. No way.

Well thought out point. I believe that increase of abortions is partly to blame on casual sex – people are forgetting that having sex should always mean getting pregnant (even if there are items you can use). The problem with any issue like this is that there are things you should do and things you should make laws for. While I certainly recognize the iron fist of the church-of-old and its integration or replacement of real government, this country tries to pretend the church does not run things. I would never ever want to limit the way any church or religion functions within their community – it’s their right to do what they believe in. I just don’t believe that their views should limit people that don’t share their views – double standard and all. The conditions you mentioned are very subjective. They talk about relative view of ethics and good, which are very subjective. There are plenty of women with unintentional pregnancies that would argue with you that their lives would end (not physically, but socially and financially) if they were to have the child. You can’t have a consensus on what an emergency situation is. A woman could be financially ruined or socially outcast if she is not allowed to stop the pregnancy (that could have resulted of her rape or other means). If she’s in such circumstances, what guarantees are there that the baby will survive anyway? What about those parents that beat and kill their children? Would they have done such actions if they loved their kids? Something to think about – abortion now instead of murder of a well-developed being later (though this could be expanded to an explicit ban of all war by the church and I don’t see many anti-war protests by religious people – killing a fetus is bad, killing a grown person isn’t a priority). I agree with the idea that abortions must decrease, since I believe many of them are caused by carelessness not tragedy (rape, etc). I think pro- and anti- camps can both unite on the anti-unwanted-pregnancy side and create an education campaign. With fewer unwanted pregnancies and even less abortions, would it really be such a subject if only several abortions were performed in the country. The trouble is that both camps want to heat up the issue – that’s how they get financial contributions. Sad but true and both sides are in on it. The law pro-life camp is pushing for is to make abortion illegal (with some radical wings suggesting ignoring health of the mother). If abortion will indeed become illegal, then those people that should have had an abortion, will now have their lives ruined without the ability to do something about it. Perhaps some research could reveal that an aborted baby (if early enough) could be safely removed and grown in a test-tube (or however it works)? I’m looking for middle ground here, but having abortions be illegal and having legal abortions at any stage of the pregnancy are both irresponsible. I’ll end on the note that I don’t think those pregnant women that have abortions explicitly want the fetus to die. They mostly want to end the pregnancy. If there’s a way for the fetus to live outside of the mother, I think many of them would be relieved. Unfortunately, these decisions could lead to other careless acts.

I agree that pro-abortion distort the truth as much as anti-abortion groups. However, abortion has always been around, always will be around, whether or not it’s illegal (see: prohibition, drugs, prostitution). Interesting how you don’t account for any exceptions, I’d think that it’s better to have one living person with an abortion than two dead people. It’s impossible for me to see how the same people that abhor such a pracitice would rather see the woman die just to keep their beliefs in tact. I think many will disagree with you. I’d like to hear your thoughts on uniting pro and anti abortion groups on lowering unwanted pregnancies through education and condoms (and other devices and methods). I also don’t see any evidence that there’s waning support for Roe v. Wade, do you have any sources? If you were to take a poll right now where the choice was abortion always, and abortion never, no exceptions in both cases, I’d think more people would chose to have abortion always. Things are never black and white though, which is why abortion, in some form, will and should always be legal.