Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

More on ectopic pregnancies.

ALL About Issues June-July 1991, p. 29
EXCEPTION: TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
by Rev. E. M. Robinson, O.P.; copyright 1991
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/EXCEPT.TXT

...A further problem arises in the assumption that there are medically
warranted situations in which the mother's life can be saved only by a
direct attack upon the child-to kill the child "in order to save the
mother's life."

The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated
exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example
of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which
allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive
organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of
abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.

. . .

It becomes necessary now to see why a medical procedure, such as the
excision of a cancerous, pregnant uterus, is sometimes ethically
permissible and should not be called an abortion.

What is involved here are two individuals, the mother and her child,
having equal, inalienable rights to continue living. If it can be
established that the mother's life demands the removal of the diseased
uterus, she has a right to this necessary means of preserving her own
life. The surgical removal is not a direct attack upon the child, either
by intention or by the nature of the procedure. Therefore, it should not
be called an abortion.

The ethical principle governing this, and similar cases, is a
long-standing one called the principle of double-effect. It is explained
in this way: an action which terminates in two effects, one good and one
evil, may be undertaken if the action, by its nature, is not evil, and if
the good end is primarily intended and the first to be executed, and if
the good effect is at least equal to the evil effect, and if the action is
necessary and is the least harmful means for attaining the good effect.
The excision of the diseased uterus is immediately necessary and is the
minimum that is required to save the life of the mother. The good and evil
effects are equal in magnitude, since both mother and child, as human
beings, have identical rights to life. In such instances there is said to
be a conflict of rights, but not a denial of the rights of either party.

One faulty assumption which is sometimes intended by the so-called
exception to the prohibition of abortion claims that the child is an
unjust aggressor and to kill the child would be a matter of justifiable
self- defense. There is no sense in which the child can be called unjust,
since this is a moral concept and requires evil intention on the part of
the actor. As for being an aggressor, the child is not responsible for
being in the uterus and is not, either by his or her presence or activity,
injuring the mother. In the previous case, for example, it is not because
of the pregnancy that the uterus is being removed.

If i may oversimplify it, you CANNOT act to kill the child, because that is MURDER. What you can do is attempt to save the life of the mother (and the child, although if in the case of ectopic pregnancies it is impossible to save the child) If the child dies, then it is an UNINTENDED effect. You attempted to save the mother without directly acting to harm the child. Here you apply what is known as the principle of double effect.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

the constitutionality of the RH BILL is still up to the Sc nad not base on MAnny's judgemenyt or the Church for that matter... concensus of medical experts can sway the Sc but with the lack of such consensus unlikely RH bill will be termed as unconsti....

i would just like to ask what if a mother who has heart ailment and childbirth or pregnancy can put her in danger does aborting the child justifiable, in a case that such preganncy or childbirth will in way possibly put her life at risk but with a75% chance and 25% rate of survival... just a question...

[mannyamador]

The Supreme Court will use the evidence of the Constitutional Commission's records. It won't be listening to advice with no basis.

Anyway, here's some useful information.

Effects of Abortion
The Effects of Abortion Including Known Complications.

[giddyboy]

No. I said a LAW allowing abortifacient contraceptives would be unconstitutional. [/SIZE]But the act of dispensing an abortifacient contraceptive, although it is contrary to the Constitution, is not immediately illegal. To make them illegal you need a specific law. And to punish them, you need a penal provision in that law. In other words, there is a difference between declaring something as illegal and declaring something as unconstitutional.

Remember, the issue we are discussing is whether the proposed bill in unconstitutional, not whether the act of dispensing abortifacient conttraceptives is illegal. That is another issue which the pro-life movement has attempted to address through a proposed anti-abortifacients law.

exactly, a law. selling or prescribing contraceptives are under two RAs i just mentioned earlier. and those are laws that still up to this day are being constitutional (coz no SC decision has said it is otherwise). and based from these laws as a guide, we have laws under BFAD that determines which contraceptives will be approved or not. so if u have a beef w/ certain contraceptives being supposedly abortifacients, why not go to BFAD and complain the matter? do u have to make another law for that, or, shall we say, amend the RAs when u can tackle the issue w/ BFAD and nip the bud, supposedly? (and by the way, u also need a court order for that. still end up sa SC, isn't it?)

and no, we are not discussing about the RH Bill as constitutional or not. that's in another thread topic. we are generally talking about "abortion" here. and because there are certain provisions in the RH Bill promoting contraceptives that u say is illegal, thus making the entire RH Bill unconstitutional, u have to review first all the preceding laws before it and tackle those instead and even as far as BFAD is concerned.

[mannyamador]

we have laws under BFAD that determines which contraceptives will be approved or not. so if u have a beef w/ certain contraceptives being supposedly abortifacients, why not go to BFAD and complain the matter?

Actually those are just regulatory rules by the BFAD (the BFAD cannot pass laws). What I say is really needed is a new law against abortifacients or an SC ruling that says the BFAD's rules are unconstitutional (but the latter needs a complaint to be filed).

and because there are certain provisions in the RH Bill promoting contraceptives that u say is illegal, thus making the entire RH Bill unconstitutional, u have to review first all the preceding laws before it and tackle those instead and even as far as BFAD is concerned.

Let me make a correction. I did NOT say that certain provisions in the RH bill are illegal which renders the bill unconstitutional. It's sorta the other way around.

I say that certain provisions of the RH bill are unconstitutional (not illegal) because they violate the letter of the Constitution and their proper interpretation of the Constitution as voted on by the Constitutional Commission.

Whether these provisions of the RH Bill are also illegal is a different matter. I'm not claiming they are. In fact, provisions of a new law cannot be "illegal" since, if passed, they supersede any contradicting provisions in other laws (effectively repealing those provisions). But a new law can be declared unconstitutional if there is reason to do so.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

no to abortion

yes to pills and condoms

fair enough?

[juainitioio]

no to abortion.. yes to ice creams and moreee...

[fish]

issue lang... kung ma-rape ka... unya na-buntis ka... dili gihapon ok magpa-abort?

[peewee_toot]

no to abortion...

[vp-rakista]

issue lang... kung ma-rape ka... unya na-buntis ka... dili gihapon ok magpa-abort?

sala ba diay sa bata kung matawo siya tungod gi-rape iya mama ug angay ang bata patyon?