A woman's right

[Fox]

If a woman becomes pregnant but comes to find out, if she delivers this baby she as a 90% chance of dying during delivery. Can she abort the baby?

Let’s say there is a 100% chance of death to the mother but the baby would be well, can she abort the baby?

Is is right if the woman says “It’s better for the old to die and the young to live.” or “It’s God’s will that I die during child birth” and forfeits her life for the baby? Does she have the right to do this or does she perserve her life and abort the child.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If a woman becomes pregnant but comes to find out, if she delivers this baby she as a 90% chance of dying during delivery. Can she abort the baby?

Not morally.

Let’s say there is a 100% chance of death to the mother but the baby would be well, can she abort the baby?

Not morally.

Even if there was a 100% chance of death to the baby during birth, one still could not abort the child.

Even if abortion of the child would save the mother. **Even if it would save 10 people, or 100, or every person on earth – you cannot kill a child.

**VC

 

[Equites_Christi]

There is obviously no ‘good’ outcome to the situation.

But I would think it better to pursue the course where no one is guilty of any sin - that is, the mother proceeds with the childbirth.

 

[LilyM]

Even if there was a 100% chance of death to the baby during birth, one still could not abort the child.

VC

One could perhaps, invoking the principle of double effect, perform SOME sort of medical procedure that would result in death to the child but save the mother, in the event that death to the child was certain but the mother’s life might be spared.

Not direct abortion of the child, certainly, but medical procedures that fall short of being abortion. Along the lines of removing a woman’s fallopian tube in the event of an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I used “abort the child” to designate a direct abortion – the intentional termination of a child. I took Fox’s question about “aborting a baby” in this sense.

VC

 

[LilyM]

I used “abort the child” to designate a direct abortion – the intentional termination of a child. I took Fox’s question about “aborting a baby” in this sense.

VC

I’m sure it probably was meant in that way. I was pointing the distinction out for the benefit of those who might define ANY sort of medical procedure that results in the death of a child as abortion.

 

[flyingfish]

What if instead of “aborting” the child, the mother decides that she will disconnect her body from the child (so say, cut off the flow of blood to the fetus). Would that be like double effect? Since she’d be modifying her body to save her own life, rather than directly killing the fetus?

 

[saskatoon]

My choice would be to go through the birth and just put everything in God’s hands. I don’t know how anyone could abort a child, especially in the final stage of pregnancy. I would think that if a woman is seeing her doctor for regular check ups, the doc would notice a problem arising and suggest other alternatives, taking the baby a little early. Of course full term is best, but if early means better survival for both mom and baby, try it. Again, it’s all in God’s hands and in the end if mom and/or baby die, He had a reason for it.

 

[LilyM]

What if instead of “aborting” the child, the mother decides that she will disconnect her body from the child (so say, cut off the flow of blood to the fetus). Would that be like double effect? Since she’d be modifying her body to save her own life, rather than directly killing the fetus?

Read up on the ‘principle of double effect’, especially at it applies to pregnant women.

One condition is that a medical procedure such as removal of a fallopian tube MUST be necessary to save the mother’s own life - ie that she is in imminent danger of death if the procedure is not performed. Another condition is that the death of the child is certain - and imminent - in any event.

“Disconnecting” the body of a healthy woman from a healthy child does not come under double effect under any circumstances.

“Disconnecting” the body of a woman who has a 90% or 100% chance of death during birth, but is pregnant with a healthy child, also doesn’t fit the criteria, since the death of the child is not certain and imminent, quite the oppposite.

“Disconnecting” the body of a woman even from a child who is 100% certain to die imminently also doesn’t fit the criteria unless the mother’s death is also imminent from keeping the pregnancy. In a huge majority of cases it isn’t, as the child will usually be spontaneously and naturally miscarried after it dies.

 

[raggetyann]

Read up on the ‘principle of double effect’, especially at it applies to pregnant women.

One condition is that a medical procedure such as removal of a fallopian tube MUST be necessary to save the mother’s own life - ie that she is in imminent danger of death if the procedure is not performed. Another condition is that the death of the child is certain - and imminent - in any event.

“Disconnecting” the body of a healthy woman from a healthy child does not come under double effect under any circumstances.

“Disconnecting” the body of a woman who has a 90% or 100% chance of death during birth, but is pregnant with a healthy child, also doesn’t fit the criteria, since the death of the child is not certain and imminent, quite the oppposite.

“Disconnecting” the body of a woman even from a child who is 100% certain to die imminently also doesn’t fit the criteria unless the mother’s death is also imminent from keeping the pregnancy. In a huge majority of cases it isn’t, as the child will usually be spontaneously and naturally miscarried after it dies.

So what is the answer? Do you let both die? That is so ungodly, that is so unhumain, I cannot see the purpose to let both die it is Gods will that none should perish yes i am taking that scripture to show you how God feels about death. Death is a curse why would you put a curse on some one? raggetyann

 

[LilyM]

So what is the answer? Do you let both die? That is so ungodly, that is so unhumain, I cannot see the purpose to let both die it is Gods will that none should perish yes i am taking that scripture to show you how God feels about death. Death is a curse why would you put a curse on some one? raggetyann

Death is a curse, true, but it is a reality for every single one of us, a curse that we will all succumb to at some point, whether it be before birth, at a young age or an old age.

Given this reality, it behoves us to use our reason and God’s guidance to determine dispassionately how best to deal with those cases where one person desires the death of another (abortion) as well as those cases where life of mother or child are in danger. This is necessary so that those who are in such situations are well-guided and not left in the lurch or at the whim of the emotions of the moment.

Now what the heck do you mean ‘let both die’? None of my examples require the death of both mother and child.

In the first of my examples NEITHER die - in fact the death of the child by abortion is prevented.

In the second the mother (who is extremely likely to die regardless of whether the pregnancy continues or not) does die, but the child (which some would mistakenly abort in the slim hope that the mother may live instead) will live, because it is healthy and born by caesarean or naturally prior to the death of the mother.

If the child is in danger of death, by definition it isn’t healthy, so I’m not talking of cases where continuing with the pregnancy would result in the death of the child.

In the third, the death of the child is permitted IF the mother’s life is in grave danger by continuing the pregnancy, and forbidden if it isn’t (ie if the child will be naturally and spontaneously miscarried with no physical harm to the mother).

Where in any of this is the death of both mother and child envisioned? In each of my last two examples the death of mother OR child is likely and/or imminent anyway - meaning the mother or child would die regardless of whether the pregnancy continued or not.

Hope this makes things clearer.

 

[GratefulDad]

If a woman becomes pregnant but comes to find out, if she delivers this baby she as a 90% chance of dying during delivery. Can she abort the baby?

Let’s say there is a 100% chance of death to the mother but the baby would be well, can she abort the baby?

Is is right if the woman says “It’s better for the old to die and the young to live.” or “It’s God’s will that I die during child birth” and forfeits her life for the baby? Does she have the right to do this or does she preserve her life and abort the child.

This is one of those classical hypothetical straw-man examples that liberals give in order to justify abortion. Usually the misguided liberal tries to extrapolate this hypothetical case and make it seem like an everyday occurrence. Not sure if that is your intent or not.

We know for a fact that 48 - 50 Million innocent babies have died due to abortion. Do we know how many of these, the mother could die while giving birth, has actually occurred, where the mother did perish solely due to childbirth?

 

[vera_dicere]

There’s actually no disease process that if endangering the women requires the child to die as a cure, with the excpetion of ectopic pregnancies. Though, they’re doing some good work with monkies to re-implant the embyro elsewhere in the uterus.

If the woman is going to die during birth, then do a c-section before birth initiates.

There are situations, where a cancer requires treatment that may harm the developing foetus, but treatments can be held off or other harmless to foetus can be given.

Approximately 98% of abortions are for social reasons.

And the late term abortions for “maternal danger” are just a rouse. It was like that moron Tiller, saying that he was “saving women’s lives”. I ask you, what doctor would introduce dialators into a woman’s cervix, kill the foetus with an injection into its heart, then send her to a motel room for three days without medical or nursing supervison with a rotting foetus and a dilating cervix and think that’s “saving her life from a dangerous maternal emergency?”

People seriously need to get a decent education. Heck, even reading Wiki will give people some clues.

If, on the rare occasion that something does go horribly wrong with the pregnant woman, the doctors tend to do everything in their power to save BOTH mother and child.

In the matter of a foetus with a terminal diagnosis, there are now, “prenatal hospices” where parents can get the help they require for the birth of their child. And kiling said foetus is not justified. Its the same argument for euthanasia, just because someone is “dying” doesn’t mean we kill them.

I mean, seriously, we’re all dying.

 

[stuart12]

It is hardly humane either to directly murder the child before he or she is born. There is life after death, but as the modern world rejects that then they see it as wrong for the mother to die. If the mother dies in a state of grace, she has nothing to fear.

 

[jdobbins]

If a woman becomes pregnant but comes to find out, if she delivers this baby she as a 90% chance of dying during delivery. Can she abort the baby?

Let’s say there is a 100% chance of death to the mother but the baby would be well, can she abort the baby?

Is is right if the woman says “It’s better for the old to die and the young to live.” or “It’s God’s will that I die during child birth” and forfeits her life for the baby? Does she have the right to do this or does she perserve her life and abort the child.

This is a more complex issue than the question implies. It requires balancing the right to self preservation and the right to life of the unborn person. If the threat to the mother’s life is immediate, she has the right to protect her life, even if the threat is from her own child. An ecoptic pregnancy is often such a case. The objective is not to take the life of the child, but to respond to an immediate threat to her own life. Immediate is the operative issue here. If the mother can carry the child long enough to deliver it early by caesarean section and preserve her life and offer the child a reasonable opportunity for life, then that is the choice she must make. This seems to be the issue posed by the question because the threat involves the delivery, not the pregnancy itself.

 

[1ke]

If a woman becomes pregnant but comes to find out, if she delivers this baby she as a 90% chance of dying during delivery. Can she abort the baby?

Let’s say there is a 100% chance of death to the mother but the baby would be well, can she abort the baby?

No, baby killing is always wrong.

That said, there is no such thing as a “100% certain” or “90% certain” situation in which the mother will die (of course even if there were killing the baby is always wrong). Doctors are well equipped to handle pregnancies in which the mother has complications. In such cases BOTH the mother and the baby are patients. It is the doctor’s obligation to do all he can to save both patients. This is often done via Caesarian section.

It is possible that in the course of treating the mother, the unintended outcome might be that the baby does not make it. That is not an abortion. It is never moral to dircetly KILL the baby. But, sometimes it is not possible to save both during an emergency delivery, usually when the baby’s lungs are not formed enough to breath outside the womb. But, we must still try to save both.

Is is right if the woman says “It’s better for the old to die and the young to live.” or “It’s God’s will that I die during child birth” and forfeits her life for the baby? Does she have the right to do this or does she perserve her life and abort the child.

A mother is not obligated to authorize treatment that might save her while endangering the child. However, there are very few situations in which this is necessary. It is quite possible to treat and save both the mother and the child in all but the rarest of cases.

St. Gianna Molla is one such case. She had uterine cancer while pregant. The only way to save her life was to remove the uterus, which of course would have resulted in the baby growing inside the uterus to die. She could have morally chosen to do so. But , she chose not to have the uterine cancer treatment until after the baby was born. The baby was born safely, but her cancer had spread and she died shortly after. She is now a Saint.

 

[Pawel_J]

Not morally.

Not morally.

Even if there was a 100% chance of death to the baby during birth, one still could not abort the child.

Even if abortion of the child would save the mother. **Even if it would save 10 people, or 100, or every person on earth – you cannot kill a child.

**VC

But you can let the child die slowly of hunger or decease in overpopulated countries of the third world. Pope John Paul I was right when he wanted to change the policy of the Catholic Church in relation to birth regulation. That’s why he wanted to accept anti baby pills. Unfortunately, he was not allowed the time for that.

 

[OraLabora]

But you can let the child die slowly of hunger or decease in overpopulated countries of the third world. Pope John Paul I was right when he wanted to change the policy of the Catholic Church in relation to birth regulation. That’s why he wanted to accept anti baby pills. Unfortunately, he was not allowed the time for that.

And you know all this how?

 

[Pawel_J]

And you know all this how?

From the book. In God’s Name by David Yallop. A very well, in detail documented book and a biography of Albino Luciani, later pope John Paul I.

 

[kage_ar]

Please provide actual examples of the medical conditions that would cause the scnarios you present.