Answer yanti Aquinas’ Natural Law

In response one could point to several facts:

 first, natural law ethical theory can well hold its own in complicated academic and heated
debates compared to other philosophical ethical theories (although I will not get into that
here).
 Second, there is simply no such thing as a "neutral" ethics which might be "perfect" for
our pluralistic society - no matter now convenient such "neutrality" might be. This
includes the ethical theories of utilitarianism, relativism or communitarianism - none of
which are "neutral" and all of which are normative ethical theories.
 Therefore, we are in fact constantly "forcing" some non-neutral philosophical or social
ethical theory on others in this country, whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not.
 Finally, as pointed out in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: "It is true that it is not
the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another.
But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom
of thought to destroy this Life.
Answer yanti Double Effect
The answer lies in the distinction between intentionally killing the child (which is never licit) and
removing the uterus with child from his mother, so that her life might be saved, and then doing
all things possible to save the child’s life as well. In both instances, the child doesn’t survive,
but in the first, the physician directly kills him; in the second, the physician permits his death, an
indirect effect of extracting a sick organ where no alternative exists. The distinction is
enormous.
Saving the life of the mother is good, and in this instance, a hysterectomy is the only possible
means of doing so.
Saving the mother is the first act, the likely death (killing) of the child is a consequence of the
good act.
The only desired effect is saving the life of the mother, which is the good that is possible.  The
likely death of the child must be sadly tolerated as the two are inseparable.
Saving one life is proportional to the loss of the other’s life.

In accordance with the Principle of Double Effect, when the child’s death (killing) comes about
as a foreseen but unintended and unwanted consequence, a consequence of an unavoidable
therapeutic intervention aimed at saving the mother’s life, then in itself it is not directly abortive,
and is thus morally legitimate.  Tolerating the ending of a life, as an indirect effect where no
other choice exists is vastly different from taking a life.  As we have said before, and say again
here, there is no such thing as a therapeutic abortion.
Keep in mind that everything possible should be done to save both lives.  It is the doctor’s duty
to fight for life, and he should call on every possible therapeutic intervention to accomplish both
goals.