The Trolley Problem compared to lifesaving abortions

I read several posts by Ophelia Benson castigating the Bishop of Phoenix for condemning a Catholic hospital for aborting a pregnancy to save a woman's life. The Church was wrong about that one. So what does the Trolley Problem have to do with this? Well, before we talk about this, let's review the Principle of Double Effect and what that might have to do with evaluating moral right (or wrong).

The Trolley Problem forced someone to choose between two apparent wrongs. Or choosing the lesser of two evils, which is how most of us would act. Flipping the switch to force the trolley onto another track that would kill one person versus five people seems pretty clear. If someone is going to die, fewer is better than more. Shoving the fat man onto the tracks is not the same, because it's pretty clear that he may not stop the trolley and yet still be killed. There's room for doubt, so another alternative would be preferable. There is also the idea of intention. Flipping the switch involves no intention, except to minimize the damage. Throwing the fat man to his death is intentional, though one could suppose he might survive.

So this brings consequences into the discussion. Consequences instantly take the discussion away from the abstract, because if there were no negative consequences to an act (such as pushing a large rock onto the tracks to stop the trolley), then no one would argue against it. Even if the trolley had a dozen people on it; clearly there's a reasonable chance most, if not all, would survive a trolley crash. Blowing up the trolley would be unreasonable unless doing do would definitively save many more. You aren't intending to kill the passengers. Their deaths would be consequential to stopping the trolley.

An eleven-week-old fetus cannot survive without its mother, which is the case mentioned above at the beginning. If there was a way to save both mother and fetus, then that's what you would do. If saving the mother meant doing the abortion, it still seems quite ethical (and moral) to do it, particularly since saving someone whose contribution to both her family and society in general is much more readily quantifiable. No, it's not that her fetus has no value, it's that its value is objectively less than hers.

I suppose the doctors could have counseled the family that they were unable to perform the abortion due to Church strictures, leaving the door open for the family to take the woman to another facility for the procedure, but if she died because of the delay or during the transfer, the ostensibly moral hospital would still be complicit in her death. Medical ethics can't simply be put aside just because of Church-imposed "moral" directives. It's a tough call for the hospital and the doctors, perhaps, but they did the right thing, and should be applauded. If thine eye offends thee; pluck it out. If the Church fails to meet your needs, abandon it as you would a worn-out coat.

I'm not surprised the Church is so hard-line adamant about their rules. After all, you gotta have rules or else all you have is anarchy. Dogs living with cats. Mass hysteria. It's just a shame that women and children don't rate more highly in their ideas of proper morality. Then we might just have something. And as a final parting shot: The Church and Christians like to complain about persecution and a "War Against Christianity." Perhaps they'd be less of a target if they changed some of their stupid, medieval rules, and got with the program. N'est pas?