response to Professor Stohr

I appreciate the response of Professor Stohr. I think that there are at least two justifications to support salpingostomy and methotrexate. The first would be through the denial of a moral absolute (that it is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being) on the ground that it would be permissible to appeal to the "totality" of the actor's intent or to the further or remote good intent (preserving the mother's future futility). I was responding to this sort of argument, although perhaps I was being overly hasty in interpreting Michael and Rob to be making this sort of argument. The second argument, which Professor Stohr notes, is that salpingostomy doesn't involve intentional killing. This argument has been made by those who don't deny moral absolutes. From reading Bill May's discussion of this, I understand that Grisez and Boyle and other moral theologians (usually placed in the orthodox camp) make this argument. This second argument invovles the claim that the actor's intent is not to kill. We have discussed this before in the context of craniotomy. I tend to agree with May that it is proper to view a salpingostomy as a direct act of killing since this procedure is lethal and is performed on the fetus not for its own good but for the good of the mother. Perhaps Professor Stohr could explain the thinking behind this second argument.

Thanks to Rob and Michael and Professor Stohr and Julian Velasco for their contributions to this discussion.

Richard M.