Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lrslattery
The principle of double effect cannot be used in this instance since every marital sexual act must be open to life. The use of a condom, even when used to attempt to prevent a disease, stills impairs the marital act and is morally and intrinsically wrong.

So, every fetus does not have the right to life, even if a diseased uterus would result in the loss of life of the mother?

The purpose of the use of the condom here is to prevent exposure to death, just as the purpose of removing a diseased uterus is to save the woman's life. The loss of the fetus, and contraception, are secondary effects.

I'm not sure what sort of consolation one could give married couples in this situation, except perhaps to suffer the consequences of engaging in the marital act with the fullness of love, or abstain - in effect, to accept and do the will of God.

So, in essence, the woman, whose husband insists on exposing her to the same sentence of death he is under, is just out of luck. Grin and bear it.

Is it the will of God that this woman die, if that can be prevented, especially if she has other children?

123 posted on 01/13/2004 12:08:25 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur
So, every fetus does not have the right to life, even if a diseased uterus would result in the loss of life of the mother?

Every directly willed abortion is sinful, no exceptions. What you present here could be a case for the principle of double effect. The intent of the doctor & mother would be to rid the mother of the disease which will surely end her life AND, as a consequence, the unborn child may die. The direct act must be morally good, or at least, morally neutral, which it is in this case.

The purpose of the use of the condom here is to prevent exposure to death, just as the purpose of removing a diseased uterus is to save the woman's life. The loss of the fetus, and contraception, are secondary effects.

The statement you make is false. The use of a condom is morally evil. The operation to remove a diseased uterus is morally good. The distinctions you are attempting to make are not related at all.

So, in essence, the woman, whose husband insists on exposing her to the same sentence of death he is under, is just out of luck. Grin and bear it. Is it the will of God that this woman die, if that can be prevented, especially if she has other children?

Neither you nor I know precisely what the will of God is in this situation. However, we do know, for certain, some things, namely:

Every marital act must be open to life. The use of a condom is morally wrong.

As I said before, there are two options of which I am aware - abstinence or suffering the possibility that one may acquire AIDS after engaging in the marital act. One's age may determine which path to follow.

And one must remember that one may never do evil in order to bring about a good.

Do not take this as a criticism for I do not mean it as such,but I would also suggest that you study your moral theology a bit. It may help clarify the issues without having to rely on those clerics who are confused.

140 posted on 01/13/2004 12:42:15 PM PST by lrslattery (Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam - http://slatts.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson