Hey DC and Parts Surrounding!

Embracing Equality, Respecting Life: A Celebration of Hope

Washington, D.C. — In the wake of El Salvador’s just and life-affirming decision regarding the difficult pregnancy of “Beatriz” — a decision respecting and honoring the lives and needs of both the mother and the child — Live Action will host a midday vigil celebrating true equality of rights and universal respect for human life. We gather in the hope of a future where all human beings are respected, all women are supported, and all life is held equally worthy of protection.

Fair and compassionate nations like El Salvador understand that no human being is without value, regardless of disability, state of development, or location. They echo the convictions deep in the hearts and souls of the majority of their people: that all men are created equal, and that we do not kill some innocents to save others. In the capital of our own nation, we will gather to commend these countries, and to hold them as an example for U.S. officials to follow.

Who: Live Action and groups across the religious and political spectra.

What: Vigil in support of courageous countries like El Salvador, who defy international pressure to respect life, protect women, and safeguard the rights of all their citizens equally.

Where: Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C.

When: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 at 12:00pm (noon) ET

Media Contact: Drew Belsky, media@liveaction.org

That’s today!  Be there!  Aloha!

  • Sven2547

    Explain to me how the Beatriz decision “honored the lives and needs of both mother and child”? Or how a premature Cesarean isn’t just an abortion-by-another-name?

    • ivan_the_mad

      If you’re looking for an answer in good faith rather than spoiling for a fight, please extend the courtesy of showing the homework you’ve done so far. It is easier to answer if it can be determined what gaps to fill in or errors to correct. RTFM and STFW are still in effect ;)

      • Sven2547

        That’s fair. Here’s what I’ve got so far.

        I know the RCC supports the “Principle of Double Effect”, which says that causing “intentional harm” is gravely unethical, whereas causing that same harm as a “side effect” to a “therapeutic” procedure is not unethical. In many contexts this makes perfect sense: If you give a pill to someone that only causes headaches, that’s a stupid thing to do. But if you give someone life-saving chemotherapy medication where headaches are a side-effect, there’s nothing unethical about it.

        In the context of a pregnency where the fetus is doomed no matter what (e.g. ectopic pregnency or, in this case, an anencephalic fetus), I have yet to have anyone explain how the “principle of double effect” is even remotely logical. Indeed, I consider it profoundly unethical: the outcome is the same for the fetus, but the RCC’s prescription is to cause added harm to the mother as well though completely unnecessary procedures (fallopean tube removal in ectopic pregnencies, premature Cesareans for anencephalic fetus).

        So I’m wondering how the decision to further endanger Beatriz’s life, by prolonging her dangerous pregnancy and subjecting her to a needlessly invasive medical procedure, is being construed as “honoring her life and needs”?

        • ivan_the_mad

          Your understanding of the doctrine of double effect is imperfect. The first thing to do is to clearly define it, and abortion as well. Having done so, the second question in your original post should be answered, and we can proceed to the first.

          Let me add you should define things according to Catholic sources, since you’re asking a question of ethics on a Catholic blog ;)

          • Sven2547

            This is where I keep ending up, people telling me “you just don’t get it”, but never, ever bothering to expand on that. Well I’ve been looking into it for some time now (since the death of Savita Halappanavar), and this is the best I’ve got. I’m asking a question of ethics on a Catholic blog. Emphasis on “question”. What I’m not seeing are answers. Maybe you’d care to perfect my understanding of the Principle of Double Effect? Maybe you’d care to define things according to Catholic sources so I can see it from your point of view? Is this not an opportunity to clear up my misconceptions?

            I did not come here spoiling for a fight, I came to ask a question. I ask this question because what I’m hearing from the RCC is deeply illogical, for the reasons I have clearly and politely laid out. Your response is that if it makes no sense to me, then I just don’t know enough about Roman Catholicism. As if that’s an acceptable substitute for an answer.

            Google “the courtier’s reply”. I think there is an apt parallel to be drawn here.

            • ivan_the_mad

              “Your response is that if it makes no sense to me, then I just don’t know enough about Roman Catholicism.” Can you quote to me where I wrote that? Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t. No courtier’s reply here. There is an exhortation to better define terms. Did you even Google “catholic double effect” before flying off the handle?

              Your definition of double effect lacks the considerations of agent intent and proportionality. Intent is a key part of the definition of abortion according to Church teaching and answers the second part of your original post. If you need more help, consider politely asking after expending some more effort.

              • Sven2547

                Can you quote to me where I wrote that?

                Your understanding of the doctrine of double effect is imperfect. The first thing to do is to clearly define it, and abortion as well. Having done so, the second question in your original post should be answered…

                In other words, learn more about the (Catholic) Principle of Double Effect and the question is answered. That’s what you said.

                While I did not use the word “intent”, I thought that I had summarized the position with my example of the chemotherapy medication. The intent of chemotherapy is to help people, not to harm them, despite the significant negative side effects of chemotherapy.

                What I don’t get is what difference “intent” makes in the case of doomed pregnancies. If you terminate a pregnancy with the primary, clear, absolute intent of saving the woman’s life, then why is it unethical?

                Let’s look at ectopic pregnancy and the RCC-condoned practice of “indirect abortion”. The “intent” is, what? The “therapeutic” removal of a woman’s Fallopian tube? How is that ethical?

                Rather than repeat over and over that I don’t know enough about the subject matter, how about you explain the subject matter (if you know it so well), and then answer the question at hand? How is the decision to further endanger Beatriz’s life being construed as “honoring her life and needs”?

                • ivan_the_mad

                  The nature of the act must be good, or at least indifferent. Direct abortion is intrinsically wrong. Therefore, you cannot procure a direct abortion as a means to anything.

                  • Sven2547

                    But unnecessarily removing a woman’s Fallopean tubes is intrinsically wrong. Unnecessarily endangering Beatriz’s life by extending her pregnancy is intrinsically wrong. These are not neutral things.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      “Let’s look at ectopic pregnancy and the RCC-condoned practice of “indirect abortion”. The “intent” is, what? The “therapeutic” removal of a woman’s Fallopian tube? How is that ethical?”” See below.

                      “But unnecessarily removing a woman’s Fallopean tubes is intrinsically wrong.” It is true that sterilization is wrong. Again, see below.

                      Ectopic pregnancies are quite literally a textbook example of double effect. LMGTFY: https://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+ectopic+pregnancy

                    • Sven2547

                      The first link just states the church’s position, but they fail to justify it logically. I’m not asking what the Church’s position is on ectopic pregnancy, I already know it. I’m asking you to justify it.

                      The second result is a lengthy scholarly work basically repeating the same thing: abortion is healthier for the woman, but is against Catholic teaching, so alternatives should be pursued, in their opinion.

                      The third result is a woman who agrees with me: The Catholic teaching on this subject is, in her words, “horrible”.

                      Spare me the snide LMGTFY links. You’re avoiding my primary question over and over again. How is the decision to further endanger Beatriz’s life being construed as “honoring her life and needs”? So far, the answer I keep getting is “her life was endangered because abortion is always wrong”. You may believe that if you want, but you can’t spin that as looking out for her safety.

                    • ivan_the_mad

                      The paper at the second link contained an exposition of double effect as applied to ectopic pregnancy – that is, your justificaton. Read more.

                    • rmichaelj

                      Sven, If I could try to cut through the Gordian Knot here.
                      The justification is due to the effect that a direct abortion would have on the immortal soul of the mother and the doctor by participating in the taking of an innocent life. It may also be justified in that the child was able to be baptized which would have an effect on the child’s soul (although we also trust in the mercy of God for those children not able to be baptized).
                      If you are looking for a justification which would satisfy a materialistic viewpoint- the only one I can think of would be the psychological damage to the mother (and possibly the Doctor) by participating in the abortion.

                    • Sven2547

                      I fail to see what psychological damage an abortion would do that a doomed premature Cesarian would not.

                    • rmichaelj

                      You fail to see the difference it would make on a mother’s state of mind? Whether she intentionally killed her unborn child early to save herself from having to undergo a health risk, versus having the child die after an early C-section even if it was a foregone conclusion, having run a risk to give her child at least a few minutes of life?

                      Really? You really don’t see the difference that would make- to another person even if it didn’t bother you? Really?

                      If truly so, I would advance that your viewpoint seems to be materialistic enough to not only deny the soul and morality that Catholics profess is real, but also to deny the basic human emotion of guilt. An emotion which is all too real and which the good people at Project Rachel have to deal with and help thousands of women overcome.

                      But I digress- Perhaps you wrote hastily as one often does on a blog response. Surely you can see the difference that would make to a parent?

                    • Sven2547

                      In the case of an elective abortion, I can see how “guilt” could come up, absolutely. Make no mistake.

                      In this case, the fetus was doomed. A 0% chance of living long enough to even gain consciousness. When the choice is between a definitely-fatal premature Cesarean, and a definitely-fatal abortion, I don’t see “guilt” coming into the picture.

                      If you were a parent, would you not consider the importance of surviving for the sake of your already-born child? Would you risk throwing your life away for one that, sadly, will not make it? It’s tragic. It’s terrible. And it’s the decision Beatriz made. She tried to make the choice as a parent, but a certain court, backed by a certain Church, decided that her choice was irrelevant.

                • Roki

                  I understand your frustration, Sven2547.

                  Double effect (or, as my moral theology prof liked to call it, “indirect intention”) is difficult to explain briefly, partly because it is rooted in ideas that modern ethical discussions ignore or dismiss or (as in the case of “intention”) misunderstand.

                  In Catholic/scholastic thinking, “intention” is the concrete action you have in mind when you act. It is what you mean to do. Self defense is a classic example: my “intention” is to fire a gun at the person attacking me. Part of that intention is understanding that, if I hit my target, it will wound and perhaps kill the attacker. So one can say that my intention includes wounding my attacker, and accepts the possibility of killing.

                  The “intention” is not my goal, or my reasons for acting, or my desired outcome. In the self-defense example, my intention does not technically include “protecting my family” or “giving the bastard what he deserves”, though both of those can be reasons for firing the gun. My intention is to wound the attacker by firing a bullet into him.

                  That’s as succinct as I can be on “intention” – and I’m open to correction from those with better understanding than I.

                  • Sven2547

                    So in your self-defense example, the principle of double-effect is an argument against self-defense. No matter how noble your desired result, your primary “intent” is to shoot a guy?

                    That’s an excellent argument against the use of that Principle.

                    • Roki

                      No, I’m nowhere near making an argument yet. I’m just trying to define terms.

                      The argument comes when we try to discern whether it’s morally good to shoot the guy.

            • Rebecca Fuentes

              I want you to know that I will take a crack at explaining this, but will need to look it up to refresh my memory.

              • Sven2547

                Much appreciated :)

                • Rebecca Fuentes

                  Ok, here it goes. I’m taking this from Fr. John Laux’s “Catholic Morality; Sin, Virtue, Conscience, Duties to God, Neightbor, Etc.” p. 26. I think this applies to the question you are asking.

                  “Is it lawful to perform an action which produces two effects, one good, the other bad?

                  “We answer: such an act is permissible under the following conditions:

                  “a) The action, viewed in itself, must be good, or at least indifferent.

                  “b) The evil effect must not be intended, but only permitted.

                  “c) There must be a sufficiently weighty reason for permitting the evil effect.

                  “d) The good effect must follow at least as immediately as the evil one.

                  “e) The good effect must outweigh the evil.”

                  Based on this guideline and the information I’ve read about Beatriz and her situation, here’s how I break it down. Was the action in itself good or indifferent? Yes, the action, a c-section of a baby that had reached viability would be considered good, especially since it was a medically necessary c-section, not one for the doctor’s or mother’s mere convenience.

                  Was the evil effect (the baby’s death) intended? No. In fact, I would guess that the allowance of the c-section at this time, as opposed to a late-term abortion, was to give the baby as much of a chance as possible to live. 27 weeks is viable, though major developments happen in the lungs during the 28th and 29th weeks, so 27 weeks isn’t great, but babies born then do have a higher chance of survival than not in developed countries. A friend of mine had a c-section at 27-weeks due to severe, non-responsive pre-eclampsia. Her daughter just had her first birthday and will not have any longterm effects from being so premature.

                  Was there a weighty reason to risk this evil? Yes, the reason was saving another’s life. Beatriz has another young child, which makes saving her life an even more important matter.

                  Did the good effect follow immediately? As far as I can tell, yes. I’ve read reports that the mother is in stable condition and recovering well.
                  Did the good outweigh the evil? Again, I’m going to say yes. The mother’s life was saved, the baby was given medical care and, as far as I can tell from the reports, every attempt was made to save his life.
                  That all sounds very clinical and cold. As a mother, and a pregnant mother at that, I can’t imagine having to choose between letting one child die, or risking his death, and letting my other three grow up without me. It’s a situation where every choice would seem to be wrong, and heart-breakingly wrong at that.

                  • Sven2547

                    Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response.
                    I agree completely that the good outweighs the evil here. In an ideal situation, the procedure would not be necessary at all. Unfortunately, it was.

                    What baffles me is why we can’t apply the same good/evil standard to the abortion she was denied weeks ago. To me, the “good” (saving her life) is still there. The “evil” (the loss of the fetus, who wasn’t going to make it) was also there.

                    What troubles me is that c-section was more invasive, and the prolonging of her dangerous pregnancy was a threat to her life. This approach does nothing but add to that “evil” we’re trying to avoid.

                    • Rebecca Fuentes

                      A direct, intended abortion, while having the same effect and outcome, in this case, would be an intrinsic evil. We can’t do evil–intentionally killing an innocent–even for a good end. I can’t speak to the intentions of the judges in El Salvador who heard the case, but the situation as it actually happened, while it extended the mother’s suffering for a time, did give the baby a chance at life, at least. It is possible that the child would have survived if he had not had hydrocephalis and other congenital problems.

                      The evil is not necessarily the death of the baby. Babies are miscarried and while it it tragic and heartrending, it is not evil in the moral sense. It was not intended, not caused by someone, no action to that end was done. To intend to cause the death of a child, to take action to that end, that is evil. While evil affects the victim, it affects the doer even more, always negatively, even if it goes unrealized at the time.

                    • Roki

                      The difference is that abortion is an act which is intrinsically evil. An abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human person; it is impossible to perform an abortion without committing a grave offence against the dignity of human life.

                      (Catholics call this “mortal sin” but, since I don’t know if you’re Catholic, I will avoid the language of sin.)

                      The question is not yet about proportionality of reasons or effects; we haven’t got there yet. The first question is whether the act is “good in itself, or at least indifferent.”

                      A person cannot perform an abortion, even to save someone else’s life, without becoming a murderer, a monster, an enemy of the child that person has killed.

                      Underlying this is the conviction that it is always and everywhere better to suffer evil than to commit evil. This is not a uniquely Christian notion; it goes back at least as far as Plato.

                      However, it seems that most people today (I catch myself thinking this way all the time) think that any kind of evil may be committed in order to avoid suffering evil. To my mind, this backwards thinking is exactly what is wrong with our culture.

                    • BrandonUB

                      This approach does nothing but add to that “evil” we’re trying to avoid.

                      Of course, but it follows a sort of maniacal legalism that some think is more important than exercising some actual thinking.

                    • Roki

                      I don’t see what legalism you’re referring to. The principle of double effect is exactly a way to avoid legalism by applying reason to all sorts of muddy moral situations.

                      For example, it asks what the different kinds of evil – and what kinds of good – are here that we should avoid (or pursue), and asks how we should prioritize them. The utilitarian or consequentialist approach to ethics that dominates most discussions today seems only to recognize the evils of suffering or destruction, and places them in an almost absolute position with regard to almost every other consideration.

                    • BrandonUB

                      Unless I’ve misunderstood the principle, it allows one to look at a potential murky situation where you could help, and instead simply wash one’s hands of the matter and say, “well, I didn’t hurt anyone, so my actions were fine”. In the particular case being discussed, a woman’s life was endangered, she suffered grievous suffering, and the only potential gain to be had was a couple hours of life for an infant. That seems like a bad bargain, to say the least.

                      But, if one buys into the argument that you can’t do anything that’s an intrinsic evil, even if the net outcome is good, it allows an unthinking sort of “I followed the rules” rationalization.

                    • Chesire11

                      Your argument is based upon a materialist philosophy that assumes that the physical universe represents the fullness of being. If that is the case, then you are right, but that is not what Catholics believe to be true.

                      Also, if one buys into the argument that the ends can justify the means, “as long as the net outcome is good” has led to all sorts of things like torture, gulags, etc…all in service to “a greater good.”

                      (Just to be clear, I am not implying that YOU are okay with things like that, I only mean to point out the dangers inherent in that line of argument!)

                    • Roki

                      But, if the Catholic/classical understanding of the human person is correct, then the net outcome would not be good. There would be a new evil in the world that had not been there before: a human person commits an inhuman act, damaging or destroying his own humanity. That’s what “intrinsically evil” means: the evil is so essentially a part of that action, that there is no good that can balance or justify it. It is an act directly contrary to the entire notion of good.

                    • Chesire11

                      First, I would like to thank you Sven, for trying to understand the Catholic perspective on this, and to engage in respectful dialogue rather than hurling condemnations, which both sides of this issue are all to often wont to do.

                      According to Catholic moral theology, good ends do not
                      justify evil means, which is to say that we cannot licitly do bad in order to bring about some good end. For instance, it would be impermissible to medical experiments on a condemned prisoner, even if the research promised to yield a cure for cancer, which would save many lives.

                      Abortion is intrinsically ordered toward the destruction of an innocent life – that is its purpose, its “final cause.” That takes it off the table as an option. To abort a live fetus, even to save the life of the mother is impermissible, but not because it promises a different outcome for the child than the c-section, but because it requires a different, and morally impermissible input by the medical staff and parents. An abortion requires the medical staff and parents to undergo a moral transformation within themselves. In order to abort, they must first become abortionists.

                      That may sound like semantics, but it really isn’t, at least from a Catholic perspective. IF the material world is all there is, IF the physical universe represents the fullness of being, then you are right, there is no moral difference between an abortion and a c-section that results in the death of a child, and all of this is just a semantic game. IF, however, the material is not the fullest expression of being, then the moral choices we make eclipse even the physical consequences. The choice to abort does more existential damage to the mother than would even her physical death, because though death changes our material condition, the decision to abort would changes the deeper reality of who she is, it wounds at a deeper level of being.

                      I’m not saying that you must agree with this reasoning, I’m only trying to help you to understand that it is not an arbitrary, incoherent or lightly held position.

                      A c-section, on the other hand is ordered toward the delivery of a live child, and preservation of the life of the mother. Though, in this case, the second effect is the almost certain death of the child that is not the intent of the procedure. The intent of the procedure is the preservation of the mother’s life. That the second effect is the child’s death, is tragic, it is not disproportionate to the good of saving the mother.

                      From a materialist philosophy, which assumes that only material ends matter, we would necessarily judge morality exclusively by material outcomes, and from that perspective, you are right, the c-section burdens the mother to no purpose. From a Catholic perspective which asserts that the material expresses, but is not itself either the fullness of being, nor even its greater part, the c-section achieves the twin goods of preserving both the physical and the moral life of the mother, and the spiritual well-being of all those involved.

                      I hope this is helpful, and clarifies more than it confuses
                      the issue.

                    • Sven2547

                      This is the most thorough and thought-out response so far, and I thank you for it. In stark contrast to ivan_the_mad, I see you actually do care about answering my questions about the philosophy behind these decisions (or in this case, removing the power of decision from a person).

                      It is a response steeped in superstition. From the standpoint of the person who does not accept superstition as valid, I’m sorry: it is indeed highly irrational.

                      Is it acceptable to risk a woman’s life for the sake of a fetus that will not survive? Here’s a crazy concept: let’s ask that woman for her opinion, since it’s her life being put at risk here. To me, this does not require a broader metaphysical examination of the fullness of being or its relation to the physical universe. It’s a very simple question: does this woman’s opinion about her own life matter? The Roman Catholic Church’s position is a wholly unsurprising “no”.

                      Fortunately, Beatriz did not die as a result of the Salvadorian Court’s decision, though she most definitely could have. If she had, I wonder if Mark Shea would still be celebrating El Salvador’s commitment to “life”?

                      Thank you again for your thorough response to this. Call it “materialism” or “consequentialism” or whatever you like. I call it reason. Better to save one than to lose two, especially when that one is asking to be saved.

                    • Chesire11

                      A person can reasonably disagree with the position I laid out, but it is neither superstitious, nor is it irrational.

                      Reason is the use of logic to infer additional information that must necessarily be true if a particular set of coherent (meaning non-contradictory) assumptions are true.

                      Superstition is the irrational belief that the relationship of cause to effect is random, and inconsistent. In essence, it denies the coherence of the universe, and rejects reason as a means of exploring truth.

                      Everything is Catholic doctrine is rational, and rejects superstition. The question of what role the state should play in a situation like the one that played out in El Salvador is a different discussion.

                  • BrandonUB

                    I think that’s a perfectly good explanation of an utterly broken principle for morality. A literal interpretation of part (a) would preclude all sorts of medical interventions that have strongly positive net outcomes (vaccination, for example).

                    • Rebecca Fuentes

                      Could you expand on that? Specifically the vaccination example. The vaccination debate is of great interest to me.

                    • BrandonUB

                      Sure – vaccination comes with a set of relatively known and quantified adverse events, at least for the bulk of highly used vaccines. While adverse events aren’t particularly common, when you’re mass immunizing a huge population, you’re inherently going to have some percentage of people that experience some measure of physical suffering and (occasionally) death. In the most extreme examples, such as the earliest smallpox vaccines, adverse events including extreme illness were quite common.

                      Considering only the immediate effects of administering these vaccines, it’d be hard to not see immunization as a negative – after all, you’re accepting physical harm as an outcome for some percentage of the population.

                      Nonetheless, the benefits so enormously outweigh the negatives that it’d be essentially impossible to find an informed epidemiologist that doesn’t regard vaccines as one of the most valuable tools in the kit against disease. The smallpox vaccines killed quite a few people – but they saved a lot more.

                    • Chesire11

                      And right there you hit upon one of the key components of the principle of double effect, that of proportionality. There is nothing intrinsically evil about an injection. In the case of an immunization, there will be some adverse effects, but the benefits of immunization far outweigh the adverse effects that follow.

                    • BrandonUB

                      I don’t think I was suggesting that there’s anything intrinsically evil about an injection, it’s all about what’s in the injection. In the case of vaccines (particularly the early ones that were developed before regulatory bodies), that’s meant injecting toxic compounds, weakened viruses, and other things that people find generally frightful and sometimes fatal. That, taken in and of itself, is clearly a negative thing to do.

                      Basically, I’m saying that the principle of double effect is incoherent without looking at proportionality, and it’s that proportionality that should have been weighed in this context. There’s nothing big to be gained from providing a few fleeting moments of life for a severely brain damaged infant, and much to be lost by subjecting a woman to months of physical and emotional suffering and a heightened chance of death.

                    • Chesire11

                      I didn’t mean to suggest you were implying that injections are intrinsically evil, but proportionality only comes into play if the means are either morally neutral or positive. If the means are intrinsically evil, then proportionality doesn’t come into consideration.

                      If proportionality preceded consideration of the moral character of the means, then it could be argued that, because you posses enough healthy organs to save the lives of say four or five other people, it would be morally justifiable to kill you to harvest your organs. Sure it would suck for you and your family and friends, but consider all of the other lives that would be saved.

                      Catholics believe that abortion is ordered toward the taking of an innocent life. That is intrinsically evil, and therefore is eliminated as a moral option right from the outset.

                    • Rebecca Fuentes

                      I believe proportionality is addressed in c and e, though indirectly. Looking at, say, the debate over vaccines, there is more to it than just this particular vaccine being given to this particular child. There is the scope of how vaccines were developed, the question of how dangerous early vaccines were vs. the risk of epidemics at that time. Currently that is the debate over requiring vaccines, requiring which vaccines, those people who are at obvious risk for complications from vaccines, how does parental sovereignty come into play, the great good vs. individual good. It’s very complex, and the excerpt I posted is more geared toward evaluating a specific circumstance.

                      The moral good or evil of the act is the first thing considered because it is the most important if we are discussing morality. If we look at things from a spiritual point of view, then committing a gravely evil act, like intentionally killing an innocent, is like intentionally giving myself stage 4 cancer of the soul. From God’s view, it must be like watching your child commit suicide, or shoot up on bad drugs. When we celebrate that this baby, who was severely disabled and died so soon after birth, was not aborted, we aren’t just celebrating that his life ended one way instead of another, we are also celebrating that neither the mother nor the doctors committed a grave evil. We celebrate for their souls.

    • Momof11

      A premature inducement or cesarean is not an abortion if you give proper care to the child delivered. The intent was not to cause the death of the child, but to save the life of the mother. The baby was given care and survived for five hours. The operation was not performed until after the child had reached the accepted age of viability.

  • BrandonUB

    Wait, you’re celebrating that incident? An incident that lays fully bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the pro-life movement by subjecting a woman to kidney failure and near death for the sake of a fetus that had no chance to live is what you’re celebrating?

    I guess it’s nice to know that this is what the pro-life movement actually wants. I applaud the honesty.

    • Bill

      yes, bankruptcy of saving innocent lives

      Typical UB leftist. I don’t miss that about that school.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X