![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I redirected article on Margaret McBride to this page and merged the content, as this seems to be a person notable for one event. BloodGrapefruit2 ( talk) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"It is fundamental Catholic moral theology that one cannot intentionally commit an evil act even if the result will be good -- that is, the end never justifies the means. On the other hand, it is also possible that an action which is morally neutral in itself and which is intended to achieve a good may also have an unintended consequence that is not good (this is called the principle of "double effect".) Had the doctors prescribed treatment, such as medication or radiation, which might also accidentally result in the death of unborn child, Catholic moral teaching would not find that an immoral act. However, since Catholic moral teaching holds that directly and intentionally killing an unborn child is always a profoundly evil act (rather than a morally good or neutral one), one may not directly and intentionally kill an unborn child even if the ultimate goal is to save the life of the mother. Because the Catholic Church considers abortions so gravely wrong, the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1398) states "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" -- that is, the excommunication proceeds automatically by the very nature of the person's actions." Fine to reinsert if commentary on this case refers to these interpretations. Fences& Windows 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this subject will not meet the criteria laid out in WP:EVENT for having a whole article, it's a news furore of the past 10 days that seems unlikely to last. I would suggest that a shortened version be merged into Catholicism and abortion, which will give this incidents its due weight. Fences& Windows 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The article touches on an organization of pro-abortion Catholics named Catholics for Choice. This organization is not endorsed by the Catholic Church, the citation for this non-endorsement was the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops' statement on the matter. There is some feeling that this source is inadequate. Is it? - Haymaker ( talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand it is assumed that articles are not advertisements or endorsements of any particular group. You may feel that this is an attempt to pollute their agenda, but it does apply and so what if it does? I disagree with the positions in lots of articles that present two or more completing postions, and "pro-choice" (which could easily be seen as "pro-death") is a position. I am not required to agree, but people should be able to show those without rancor.
I don't see any problem with keeping this citation as long as the somewhat accusatory-sounding "an independent organization not endorsed by the Catholic Church" is shortened to "an independent group" or "a lay group" (as it has been currently). It is useful to know what connections this group has to the Church. Shii (tock) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The lede paragraph currently reads, The excommunication of Margaret McBride occurred following the sanctioning by the Religious Sister in November 2009 of an abortion at a Roman Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. Her decision and her subsequent excommunication aroused controversy in the areas of medical ethics and Catholic theology. However, this gives an unclear picture of what actually happened. Because her excommunication was automatic, it happened at the moment she made her decision to sanction the abortion. "Following" and "subsequent" make it sound like this occurred later in time; possibly arising from a mistaken notion that the bishop imposed the censure himself. He did not, he merely determined that it had already happened. I hope we can tighten up the wording to reflect the reality of events. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I redirected article on Margaret McBride to this page and merged the content, as this seems to be a person notable for one event. BloodGrapefruit2 ( talk) 01:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
"It is fundamental Catholic moral theology that one cannot intentionally commit an evil act even if the result will be good -- that is, the end never justifies the means. On the other hand, it is also possible that an action which is morally neutral in itself and which is intended to achieve a good may also have an unintended consequence that is not good (this is called the principle of "double effect".) Had the doctors prescribed treatment, such as medication or radiation, which might also accidentally result in the death of unborn child, Catholic moral teaching would not find that an immoral act. However, since Catholic moral teaching holds that directly and intentionally killing an unborn child is always a profoundly evil act (rather than a morally good or neutral one), one may not directly and intentionally kill an unborn child even if the ultimate goal is to save the life of the mother. Because the Catholic Church considers abortions so gravely wrong, the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1398) states "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication" -- that is, the excommunication proceeds automatically by the very nature of the person's actions." Fine to reinsert if commentary on this case refers to these interpretations. Fences& Windows 13:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this subject will not meet the criteria laid out in WP:EVENT for having a whole article, it's a news furore of the past 10 days that seems unlikely to last. I would suggest that a shortened version be merged into Catholicism and abortion, which will give this incidents its due weight. Fences& Windows 14:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The article touches on an organization of pro-abortion Catholics named Catholics for Choice. This organization is not endorsed by the Catholic Church, the citation for this non-endorsement was the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops' statement on the matter. There is some feeling that this source is inadequate. Is it? - Haymaker ( talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand it is assumed that articles are not advertisements or endorsements of any particular group. You may feel that this is an attempt to pollute their agenda, but it does apply and so what if it does? I disagree with the positions in lots of articles that present two or more completing postions, and "pro-choice" (which could easily be seen as "pro-death") is a position. I am not required to agree, but people should be able to show those without rancor.
I don't see any problem with keeping this citation as long as the somewhat accusatory-sounding "an independent organization not endorsed by the Catholic Church" is shortened to "an independent group" or "a lay group" (as it has been currently). It is useful to know what connections this group has to the Church. Shii (tock) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The lede paragraph currently reads, The excommunication of Margaret McBride occurred following the sanctioning by the Religious Sister in November 2009 of an abortion at a Roman Catholic hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. Her decision and her subsequent excommunication aroused controversy in the areas of medical ethics and Catholic theology. However, this gives an unclear picture of what actually happened. Because her excommunication was automatic, it happened at the moment she made her decision to sanction the abortion. "Following" and "subsequent" make it sound like this occurred later in time; possibly arising from a mistaken notion that the bishop imposed the censure himself. He did not, he merely determined that it had already happened. I hope we can tighten up the wording to reflect the reality of events. Elizium23 ( talk) 00:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)