#double effect

[thehighmass]

what’s the whole catholic believe on ectopic pregnancy? Because obviously it results in having to terminate the pregnancy, but the human being from point of conception thing means everyone still considers it murder? So how does that work?

the Church leans on the principle of double effect, where an action that is intended for a moral good has a harmful consequence. as long as the harmful consequence is not the intent, something is allowed to go ahead.

in the case of ectopic pregnancies, the Church says that treatment is permitted to remove the foetus without the intention of killing the foetus, but this will naturally be the effect. typically, this manifests as the whole fallopian tube being removed (if that is where the foetus has implanted), which has the consequence of the foetus dying, but the intention was to safely remove the fallopian tube to save the life of the mother.

[prochoice-activist]

The fact that pro-lifers will bring up intent when it comes to abortions for life threatening pregnancies, embryos that get flushed out via periods, miscarriages, and IVF embryos being destroyed proves that they think abortion is fine as long as it’s not a woman’s choice

[skyovereuropeldkde]

Thank you for Follow Thank you for Reblog Thank you for Like Thank you for visit my Blog Click Photo to see full Size 🇩🇪 Skygazercarba 🇩🇪

[jeggit]

Eighth Amendment Referendum

Allow me to put my cards on the table. I am not comfortable with the idea of abortion and neither am I entirely comfortable with the rights discourse that has become attached to the question of abortion. Yet this does not mean that I am in favour of the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

I am a Christian and this does have a part to play in how I think about the ethics of the termination of the life of the unborn. Women too have a right to life and the right to health, and there are situations in which medical intervention is required to save the life of a pregnant woman. To deny this is fundamentally antithetical to any morality that treasures the sanctity of life.

It is simply not the case that Christians cannot support the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Ultimately for the Christian this is a question of bioethics and informed conscience. It would be wrong for a Christian to support and enable - in any way - any law that would allow for unrestricted access to abortion. But this need not be what is asked in this referendum.

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church abortion is a “grave offence” and a “crime against human life.” As such it is considered a grave and mortal sin. The Catechism states:

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offence, and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. 2272

In Christian tradition, however, the principle of double effect has long been accepted; that while it is wrong to intentionally end the life of the unborn, it is permissible to therapeutically intervene to save the life of the mother even when this intervention results in the death of the child.

The problem we have in this debate in Ireland at present is that the extremes on either side are drowning out the centre. What this means in practice is that both sides are wrongly personalising and demonising their opposition. In doing this both sides run the risk of alienating people who might otherwise be prepared to listen to the case they have to make.

[catholiccom-blog]

Birth Control for Medical Reasons

Full Question

        Is it a sin to use birth control in a marriage for medical reasons?        

Answer

Medical treatments used for the purpose of treating or alleviating a medical condition that also have a birth-control effect (that is not willed) are acceptable.  

The Church does not consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever (Humanae Vitae 15).

In Catholic moral theology, a principle called "double effect" states that an action that has two effects (one good, one bad) is permissible if:

The act itself is not intrinsically wrong.

The person acting intends only the good effect and would act otherwise if possible to avoid the bad effect.

The bad effect does not cause the good effect .

The good effect "outweighs" the bad effect.

In the case of using for health purposes a treatment that has a contraceptive effect, it is generally seen as permissible under the above mentioned conditions for double effect. What we need to ask is: if sexual activity was not taking place, would this treatment still be the best course of action? If yes, then it would appear that we have met the threshold for the principle of doubt effect:

Care of our health is a good thing.

The health of the person is what is intended to be treated; contraception is not the intention.

Contraception is not the cause of the good health effect.

This is gray area; only the individual (in consultation with his doctor) can determine the severity of the consequences of not treating the condition with this method.

[clay-depression-pony]

The Principle of Double Effect: You can't do a good action is said good action has been arbitrarily defined as bad by a bunch of suspicious men in cloaks. Doesn't matter what the consequences are. Don't blame them, though; it's not really their idea. It's some other guy's idea. What other guy? Why, the Best Guy Ever, obviously. He totally exists, by the way, and is not dead, and we eat him every week. Also, he's not really even setting the rules. It's our interpretation of what someone guy said about some guy about that guy about some other guy about that guy and it's been translated through forty different languages and there have been wars fought over the whole deal.

So what if what we want will cause maternal and neonatal death rates to reach the same levels they did in the 7th century? It's evil to fix the problem because we said it's evil. We're the smart person religion, by the way.

[theologyforthelayman]

Veritatis Splendor And Double Effect

The principle of double effect, or PDE, has its origins with St. Thomas Aquinas. It is one of the best strategies in solving complex morality issues. #blog #jesus #catholic

Over the course of our lives we will be faced with many difficult decisions.  These decisions may be life altering and may change us forever. In the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, Saint Pope John Paul II writes, “Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man’s true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the…

View On WordPress

[vulnerasti-cor-meum]

The Doctrine of Double Effect

“104. It is lawful to perform an action from which an evil effect is foreseen when the following conditions are present: (a) the action willed itself must be good or at least indifferent; for clearly, if the action is bad, it is also unlawful; (b) a good effect must also follow from the act, and it must not be caused by the evil effect; for the end does not justify the means. Thus, it is not lawful to take what belongs to others in order to give alms, for the evil effect (stealing) results from the act (taking) immediately; whereas the good effect (almsgiving) results only mediately through the theft; (c) the agent must intend only the good effect, since it is unlawful to wish evil. Thus, if one foresees that one's virtuous life will cause the sin of envy in a neighbor, this evil result of one's virtue must not be entertained by one as something pleasing[*]; (d) the agent must have a reason sufficiently weighty for permitting the evil result that follows his act. Evil should not even be permitted, unless there is adequate compensation in the good that is intended.”

CHARLES J. CALLAN & JOHN A. MCHUGH, MORAL THEOLOGY § 104 (1958)

See also the justification defense in criminal law and criminal defense theory.

The principles are straightforward enough. But man is complicated; a person may have turning in his mind many different motivations for one act or a course of conduct, variously: good and pure; praiseworthy; more laudable than not, indifferent, less laudable than not; corrupt, or evil. I suppose then of course these principles apply to first principles; application to particular cases will depend also on circumstances, conscience, custom, and economy. Being good is hard (although being not-evil isn’t necessary difficult lol). Being human is hard.

*also interesting is the theory that one is responsible for the foreseeable sin in the mind of a third person but not even his acts. Hmmmm.