Actually, the Church's position would be that the three lives (the two twins' and the young girl's) are all of equal worth, and that it is always wrong to murder so that another may live. The end of saving a person's life does not justify the means.
If you accept the unborn children as full human beings, the logic becomes clear instantly: I suspect most reasonable people would condemn a Siamese twin who murdered her twin sister even if otherwise they would likely both eventually die.
If you believe that unborn children are less than human, maybe even less than animals, then of course this will seem barbaric. What person would allow another person to die for the sake of two creatures that rank lower than a cat?
As always, this abortion argument comes down to how we value unborn children. This is a tragic case that clearly should have never happened, but if there were no doubt that the children were full human beings with their human rights already intact, then most people would agree with the church's stance, or something close to it.
I do wonder - why not just "nearer to term"? Why full-term? At 24 weeks, the babies would have still been quite small and yet would have had a chance to survive. Going back to the Siamese twin example, it may have been acceptable to risk harming or killing her and her twin in an attempt to save the lives of both. There is the extreme of abortion, and the extreme of full-term babies causing maternal (and almost certainly infant) deaths - but there is middle ground, as well.
Admittedly, I am taking your word that a 9 year old couldn't carry twins to term. I personally am dubious, as 9-year-olds were allowed to wed in some cultures in the past; also, if a five-year-old could give birth to one child (Lina Medina), it does not seem implausible that a nine-year-old could support twins. At the very least, you seem to be wrong in concluding that a nine-year-old's uterus would be too small to support a single pregnancy.
Comment Reply
Actually, the Church's position would be that the three lives (the two twins' and the young girl's) are all of equal worth, and that it is always wrong to murder so that another may live. The end of saving a person's life does not justify the means.
If you accept the unborn children as full human beings, the logic becomes clear instantly: I suspect most reasonable people would condemn a Siamese twin who murdered her twin sister even if otherwise they would likely both eventually die.
If you believe that unborn children are less than human, maybe even less than animals, then of course this will seem barbaric. What person would allow another person to die for the sake of two creatures that rank lower than a cat?
As always, this abortion argument comes down to how we value unborn children. This is a tragic case that clearly should have never happened, but if there were no doubt that the children were full human beings with their human rights already intact, then most people would agree with the church's stance, or something close to it.
I do wonder - why not just "nearer to term"? Why full-term? At 24 weeks, the babies would have still been quite small and yet would have had a chance to survive. Going back to the Siamese twin example, it may have been acceptable to risk harming or killing her and her twin in an attempt to save the lives of both. There is the extreme of abortion, and the extreme of full-term babies causing maternal (and almost certainly infant) deaths - but there is middle ground, as well.
Admittedly, I am taking your word that a 9 year old couldn't carry twins to term. I personally am dubious, as 9-year-olds were allowed to wed in some cultures in the past; also, if a five-year-old could give birth to one child (Lina Medina), it does not seem implausible that a nine-year-old could support twins. At the very least, you seem to be wrong in concluding that a nine-year-old's uterus would be too small to support a single pregnancy.
March 21, 2009 - 1:57amThis Comment
Reply