Challenge: Is Care For The Poor, Sick, And Elderly An Intrinsic Evil?

Earlier today I saw online a Catholic arguing that our Christian obligation to support those that cannot support themselves (the poor, sick, and elderly) is more important than the issue of abortion.  Although I do not know the person, I chose to reply because of the nature of the audience that would see his position.  What follows is my response to his opinion that care for those that cannot support themselves is more important than ending abortion.

Taking care of the poor and sick is certainly a good thing for us to do. However, supporting anyone that stands behind allowing the killing of innocent people is intrinsically evil (for those not familiar with the term intrinsically evil, please see this blog post; it means "evil no matter what the circumstances.") You could argue that one candidate allowing for an exception in limited cases is intrinsically evil in order to not support him, but if you do that you would have to not support the other candidate that supports abortion with no exception for the same reasons. In which case you would have to find another candidate to support. Support for abortion is morally wrong. As the bishop said,"One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils," and that is our first obligation as faithful Catholics.

If a President and Congress make changes that cut back drastically on support of the poor and sick, we can still provide for them through our own work. So long as there are laws that allow abortion (with no exceptions), we are allowing an intrinsic evil to occur. If laws were to come that would make it illegal for us to provide for the poor and sick, we might have an interesting discussion on whether caring for them or allowing abortion were the greater intrinsic evil, but they are both intrinsically evil and we could not support a candidate with either belief. The one intrinsic evil in play here is abortion. We might disagree on how to provide for the poor and sick, but how that is performed is not a moral issue, in which case we are called to support that candidate that does not support abortion (with no exceptions).

There are other moral issues as well, like support for gay marriage, that go against the teaching of the Catholic Church. One might argue that we have no right to force our morality onto others, but this is something that will have an impact on any religion that believes in marriage being between one man and one woman. Laws are being pushed to force churches to perform "same sex marriages." If this is not an issue of religious freedom, then I don't know how far the government would have to push to make people of faith realize that the government is intruding in religion. Secondly, there is a good amount of imagery in our faith that is rooted in marriage like the creation accounts and the marriage of Jesus to the Church. These images lose their meaning as "same sex marriages" become legal. Do you want the teachings of the Church to become watered down because of changes in the law?

"Same sex marriage" is a moral issue as are abortion and care for the poor and sick. The intrinsic evils are abortion and "same sex marriage," which means "evil no matter what the circumstances." I hope you understand how abortion and "same sex marriage" are "evil no matter what the circumstances." Go back and reflect on whether how one party plans to care for the poor and sick is "evil no matter what the circumstances." If you still feel that supporting a candidate that supports abortion and "same sex marriage" is acceptable, please explain your rational. The rationale should explain:
1) How one candidate's plans for caring for the poor and sick is an intrinsic evil.
2) Why abortion and "same sex marriage" are not intrinsic evils OR why it is acceptable to support a candidate that supports one intrinsic evil over a candidate that supports another intrinsic evil.

I challenge any Catholic to provide such rationale.

Is the Mississippi "Anti-Abortion" Law Unfair?

Yesterday we saw that a Federal judge is blocking "a state law that threatens to shut down Mississippi'sonly abortion clinic and make it nearly impossible for women to get the procedure in the state."

As we have heard for a while, the abortion business is about women's health.  If that is really the case, then those supporting the abortion industry should be concerned about what happens to the woman having an abortion and something goes wrong with the procedure.  If one reads the entire article linked above, they will notice "(Clinic owner Diane) Derzis said that since she acquired Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2010, no woman has had to be taken from the clinic by ambulance."  That may be true, but that does not mean that no woman receiving treatment at the clinic needed to be taken to a hospital.

In this article from 2010, we see a variety of issues with clinics that perform abortions.  This includes botched abortions in Columbus, OH, "illegal abortions, unlicensed staff dispensing drugs and performing medical tasks for which they were not qualified" in Nebraska, a doctor "violating the terms of his probation by doing abortions without the required supervision of another physician" in California, and two "forced abortions" in Michigan.  These could very well be exceptions, but let's take a closer look at the issue in Columbus.

Looking deeper into the story of two botched abortions, we see disregard for the woman's health immediately following a botched abortion.  In the first instance "a pro-life sidewalk counselor saw a young woman leaving...an abortion clinic in Columbus, Ohio, after an abortion...the patient swooned, dropped to her knees, and began to vomit as she bled heavily through her clothing."  She was at the clinic for a total of two hours and felt "nauseated and lightheaded" during her visit and when she was discharged."  At the emergency room, she was treated for heavy bleeding, and given medication for her dizziness and nausea. It took emergency medical professionals six hours to stabilize her."  Where was the concern for the woman's health at the clinic?  Were they just trying to get rid of her because they thought something serious might happen to her?  Perhaps even death.  If they clinic staff is concerned about women's health, they would have kept her there or taken her to one of the hospitals at which the doctors have admitting rights.

The second case is a woman being "admitted to a Columbus hospital after suffering excessive bleeding and pelvic pain after her abortion...According to her transcripts, she suffered from a hematoma, or internal bleeding inside the tissues, and excessive clotting. Efforts by hospital staff to contact the clinic were unsuccessful."  Again we have a woman having to go to the hospital due to complications from an abortion.  The article is not clear on whether she was discharged from the clinic before going to the hospital.  Considering that the hospital was unsuccessful in contacting the clinic, I think it is safe to assume that they discharged her.  Furthermore, the fact that the clinic would not respond to the hospital regarding the treatment of one of their patient's tells me that this is yet another clinic that is not really concerned about the health of the woman.

It is possible that these are isolated cases in one city.  Some would even say that it is likely that these are isolated cases and I will give them that.  However, if you dig around you will see that problems like this are being uncovered across the country.

The fact of the matter with this law is that the State of Mississippi needs assurances that the women receiving abortions in Mississippi is given the proper and necessary care, especially in the events of complications.  While this law may have been drafted with the intent of shutting down the abortion industry in Mississippi, the law does bring abortion clinics to the same standard as all ambulatory surgical centers.  If this law were drafted with any other type of clinic in mind, it would likely be a non-issue.  If this law were really unfair, it would be holding abortion clinics to a higher standard, not bringing them up to the standard of other surgical centers.