| Even if it what you claim were true, what provision do you make for this woman and her family?
I want for all women what Rick Santorum and his wife exercised - the right to decide this tragic matter in a way that is both true to consciene and realistic in terms of the questions of who lives and who does not.
Before I discuss the Santorum's tragedy, I must say that I am of the opinion that a candidate's family and especially such sad events in their lives should generally be off-limits. But when a candidate insists on taking a moral absolutist position on the very issue which is at the heart of the tragdy, it is both relevant and necessary to discuss such matters.
Accounting to published accounts of the explanation provided by the Santorums, Karen Santorum in her 19th week of pregency ,
Karen Santorum did not have an abortion
"a radiologist told them that the fetus Karen was carrying had a fatal defect and was going to die." They opted for a "bladder shunt" surgery that led to an intrauterine infection and a high fever. The Santorums were told that "unless the source of the infection, the fetus, was removed from Karen's body, she would likely die."
This, in turn lead to an infection...
"Once she had this profound infection in the uterine cavity which involved the amniotic cavity and the uterus itself, all the antibiotics in the world given in high, high doses would not have reversed this process [ of labor or giving birth ]," the doctor said. In other words, [they, the doctors didnot ] ...try and stop labor because it wouldn't have made a difference.
Rick Santorum did tell the Inquirer that "if that had to be the call, we would have induced labor if we had to," under the understanding that the fetus was going to die anyway and intervening would save Karen's life. And it is accurate to say that the direct experience of a life-threatening pregnancy and a tragic loss did not leave Rick Santorum with any empathy for women who do have to make those difficult decisions in extremely murky circumstances.
As the doctor put it, "One takes from this that pregnancies can go very, very wrong, very quickly." Moreover, the kinds of legislative hurdles Santorum wants - or hospital administrative committees that seek to supersede the family's decision-making - can certainly slow down the process and endanger women's lives in the process.
Note what happened here. A women facing a complicated and potentially fatal pregnacy discussed with her husband , and perhaps other trusted friends or adivsors, spiritual or otherwise what was the right thing to do. In light of the fact that the mother's death would leave two other children motherless, he says "we would have induced labor if we had to," under the understanding that the fetus was going to die anyway and intervening would save Karen's life."
So much for black and white morality. So much for one size fits all public policy mandates.
Hardest of all for the supporters of moral abolute postions on abortion is how they square their position with their voting patterns. Most of them vote Republican on the theory that they are voting "pro-life." Of course the truth is , they are voting pro-life for unborn fetuses.
I say, when you vote Republican you bear some responsiblility for the born , for the childern of the poor who suffer from lack of food and medical care because of the policies the Republicans religously legislate. It is safe to say that childern die because of your votes , votes that put such people in power. [see also
here ]
I, in turn do the same when I vote as I do.
I respect your choice , I ask you to respect mine. You clearly believe that your choice is the more moral, the less evil outcome or, you fall back on the good old "double effect".
Key Ethical Principles
An action that is good in itself that has two effects--an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect--is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil.
When there is a clash between the two universal norms of "do good" and "avoid evil," the question arises as to whether the obligation to avoid evil requires one to abstain from a good action in order to prevent a foreseen but merely permitted concomitant evil effect. The answer is that one need not always abstain from a good action that has foreseen bad effects, depending on certain moral criteria identified in the principle of double effect. Though five are listed here, some authors emphasize only four basic moral criteria (the fifth listed here further specifies the third criterion):
The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one's fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available;
The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.
I get it, I do. But I judge, in good conscience that my choice, my intentions, fulfills these conditions. I take my morals as seriously as you do. I just reach a different conclusion as where my priorities lie.
I end where I began : Every abortion is a tragedy, but not every such tragedy is a moral transgression. |
