Monday, May 17, 2010

The baby-eating bishop of Phoenix

This man rebuked, 'moved to other duties' and ecommunicated a nun, who was also a hospital administrator, because she authorised an abortion at 11 weeks in order to save the life of the mother. In this situation, it wasn't possible to save child. If no action was taken, mother and foetus would die. If the abortion was carried out, the foetus would still die, but the mother would not. Rarely are moral decisions so clear cut: could there possibly be an argument for witholding the abortion? Olmsted thinks there is:

"An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."

The end of SAVING A WOMAN'S LIFE does not justify the means of killing a foetus THAT WOULD HAVE DIED ANYWAY.

When are we going to stop accepting these monsters as weilders of moral authority?

No comments:

Post a Comment