I was wondering, given the whole turn the other cheek philosophy propounded by Jesus, what do Catholics think about the use of deadly force with regards to self defence?
If it is allowed would this not allow the use of a targeted procedure for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy instead of the wholesale removal of the fallopian tube?
Turning the other cheek is supposed to teach the attacker something, dying isn’t.
You use deadly force to defend yourself.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, direct abortion is not allowed, however the removal of the foetus, which will inevitable cause its death, is. The outcome is not desired but inevitable.
Why is it considered OK to defend yourself up to and including deadly force from an outside attacker but when ‘attacked’ by a blastocyst you must refrain from directly causing harm and instead cause more harm than necessary to the woman involved?
I would have imagined that the doctrine of self defence would have allowed direct action against the blastocyst using the same rationale as would allow direct action against an outside attacker.
I picture this as being along the lines of “Killing another person is not allowed unless that person is a direct threat to your life” would be equivalent to “abortion is not allowed unless the embryo is a direct threat to your life”.
You put the word attacked is quotes, which indicates to me that you understand there’s a difference between the two types of attacks at issue.
I put the word attacked in quotes as the blastocyst obviously lacks the volition to cause harm and the word attack carries with it the implication of some measure of volition.
Would it help if I ask if it would be permissible to kill someone who is about to cause you harm but is lacking the volition to do so?
Thought experiment: I am trapped in the road and armed with a gun and with a grenade launcher. A driver is bearing down on me and cannot see me in time to stop from running me down. I have a choice between shooting the driver in the head or blowing up the car. Both of these options, using the magic of the hypothetical, will spare my life.
You can prevent the damage by removing the human (as a foetus or blastocys) even if you know the outcome is death. You cannot cause the direct death of an innocent.
It sounds like you are asking clarification for the “Doctrine of Double Effect”, which I believe is a philosophical principle of Roman Catholic Ethics or Natural Law Ethics.
The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect*
by Phillipa Foot (pdf warning)
So, removing a Fallopian tube in the case of ectopic pregnancy would be permissible under the DDE, because the death of the fetus is a side effect of the procedure not the direct intent of the procedure. However, it is sometimes possible to spare the woman surgery by giving her an intramuscular injection of methotrexate to terminate the ectopic pregnancy - which would NOT be permissible under DDE.
Also, consider a woman who will die of eclampsia or malignant hypertension, strict application of the DDE forbids abortion even in these cases so both fetus and mother must die. Although, some argue that by inducing labor and delivering the fetus naturally (though too premature to live ) would satisfy the DDE. Kind of gray area.
The more recent controversial cases of abortion and the application of the DDE would be the case of Sister Margaret McBridein Phoenix, AZ. Sister McBride was a hospital administrator who authorized an abortion on an 11 week fetus to save the life of the mother who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension. For authorizing the abortion Sister McBride was excommunication from the RCC. I believe she was later reinstated though the hospital severed ties the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix because the hospital refused to promise never to perform abortions under similar circumstances in the future.
And most notably the recent Death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland who was suffering a miscarriage at 17 weeks (ruptured membranes and dilated cervix) leading to septicemia (which eventually took her life) who was denied a life-saving abortion until the fetal heartbeat stopped. Some argue this is case of medical malpractice or that this is case of when Catholic ethos caused a preventable death by delaying a life-saving intervention. Unfortunately, the the law in Ireland is somewhat unclear on what the best course of action should be in such a case. Waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop before removing the fetus - in this case a three day lag - allowed the infection to lead to septicemia and organ failure.
And, for something even more authoritative, see the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives (pdf) numbers 45, 47-49:
All of this is based on the Catholic moral teaching that a good end does not justify an objectively evil act (i.e. taking the life of an innocent human person, which is distinct from a self-defense situation in which the attacker is not innocent). It is, also, based on the position (based on reasonable argument, not faith) that human life begins at conception and that innocent lives (i.e. the life of the child and the life of the mother) have equal value.
Some argue that. Others argue differently.
And that makes it okay?
1, I’d have to say no. How is his fault? Did he do anything wrong? Did he act in any way to put you in danger? If he bore even a part of the fault, then, yes, you might be able to act in a morally justifiable way. If he’s going over the speed limit, for instance. But if he’s just Joe Commuter, on the road, and there you are, all unexpected, I’d have to say that killing him is simply not morally defensible.
2, Yes, but only barely. You can pretend to yourself that there is a chance that the grenade will only blow out the tires or stop the engine or otherwise disable the other vehicle. At very least, you can say to yourself that this was your intention. Targeting the driver removes that plausible deniability.
I don’t understand the distinction, removing the human (why use this word??) results directly in the death of an innocent doesn’t it?
Well, that’s not a very good argument. The author claims that the law is perfectly clear and the hospital should have known it was free to terminate Savita’s pregnancy. But obviously it didn’t know this. Hence, the law was *not *clear to the people charged with carrying it out. Whether it’s clear to a “writer and broadcaster” in another country entirely is irrelevant.
How do Catholics explain the mechanism for miscarriage? Up to 50% of ALL conceptions result in miscarriage usually at the beginning, when the body senses a genetic defect and gets rid of it. God designed this mechanism for culling defective fetuses, right?
Innocents are killed in wars every day, there is the Just War Doctrine, Yes.
If you were a doctor would you take the chance of going to prison if you made the wrong decision. If the woman would have lived opponents would have claimed, see she lived her life was not in danger after all.
How do Catholics explain the mechanism for miscarriage? Up to 50% of ALL conceptions result in miscarriage usually at the beginning, when the body senses a genetic defect and gets rid of it. God designed this mechanism for culling defective fetuses, right?
Innocents are killed in wars every day, there is the Just War Doctrine, Yes.
My bolding:
I think that this is where my disagreement lies (and what I tried to examine with my hypothetical). As far as I can see self defence has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the person about to cause me harm but only with the reasonable belief that my life is in danger and it will take deadly force to prevent it.
Can it be said that, from a Catholic point of view, deadly force against an unambiguous attacker is allowed but in the case of the hypothetical where a driver, through no fault of his own, is about to mow me down and I can magically stop him through the use of deadly force that I should refrain from acting and die?
Well, let’s say you are driving down a road, obeying all traffic laws and around the bend an immobile body suddenly appears in your path. Do you feel you deserve to die?
“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
-Will Munny
More seriously, it’s not that you deserve to die but that the other person has a right to defend their life.
Exactly. And if we take this back to ectopic pregnancies, even granted the Catholic argument that the embryo is fully human, that human is going to die regardless of the action we take so there are three possibilities.
Do nothing and allow both to die. - I can see this as a moral choice to make if you hold that innocent life is sacrosanct and must not be ended.
Take action in such a way that the mother bears unnecessary harm and the baby dies. - You have decided to take action and thus your actions are now directly related to the death of the baby but you have also decided to cause more than necessary harm to the mother (another innocent life). I see this as relating to the use of unreasonable force in self defence. You have used more force than necessary to prevent the bad outcome.
Take action in such a way that the mother bears only necessary harm and the baby dies. - In this choice you have decided to take an action and it is just as related to the death of the baby as option 2 but you are minimizing the action taken against the mother and I believe this is more analogous to a proper use of self defence and because of this is the more moral choice.
All of that being said, the equation can change drastically when the different options provide different chances of survival for the baby but ectopic pregnancy, at this point, does not and I believe the church is taking an immoral stance on this issue by advocating greater harm to an innocent without chance of a better outcome.
Perhaps, it was unclear that I was presenting two arguments: That some argue Savita Halappanavar’s death was medical malpractice and others argue her death was caused by strict adherence to Catholic ethos.
emphasis mine
From yourcite:
Which seems to be splitting hairs after the fact by saying inducing labor early of a 17 week fetus (non-viable at that stage of development) is not considered a direct abortion - even though inducing labor that early is directly intended to terminate the pregnancy in order to save the mother’s life.
It should also be pointed out that the Irish Medical Council != Roman Catholic Church.
Which sort of contradicts from your United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives (pdf) numbers 45, 47-49:
Sister Margaret McBride who authorized the termination of an 11 week pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother did so by her interpretation of Directive 47 in the U.S. Catholic Church’s ethical guidelines for health care providers. Yet Bishop Olmsted said Sister McBride’s excommunicated herself by authorizing the procedure.