A woman's right

[JimG]

It is never right to kill an innocent baby directly. But in accord with the principle of double effect, certain medical treatments may be offered.

What I do know is that if abortion were prohibited except for such cases–where the life of the mother was directly threatened and she was nearly certain to die in continuing the pregnancy–we would eliminate about 99% of all abortions, and there would not be much national debate.

So, will pro-choicers agree to prohibit all abortion except where necessary to actually save the mother’s life? I can pretty much answer that. It will never happen.

 

[Antrim]

No

Saint Gianna Beretta Moplla 1922 - 1962 gave her life for her child. That is why she is a Saint today.

Antrim

 

[Raphael777]

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.

I don’t know if this is true or not. In the spirit of Charity and until proven otherwise I’m going to assume it’s not.

But as a hypothetical, if a Pope wanted to “change the policy of the Catholic Church” as respects to a question of faith or morals, and died before being “allowed the time for that.” to me that would be a solid proof that the teaching authority of the Papacy is indeed protected by the Holy Ghost

 

[Rence]

What I do know is that if abortion were prohibited except for such cases–where the life of the mother was directly threatened and she was nearly certain to die in continuing the pregnancy–we would eliminate about 99% of all abortions, and there would not be much national debate.

So, will pro-choicers agree to prohibit all abortion except where necessary to actually save the mother’s life? I can pretty much answer that. It will never happen.

Reading a lot of the posts on this subject, I don’t think it will satisfy Pro-lifers to limit abortions to just in saving the mother’s life either.

We’ve seen too many posts to count that disregard a woman’s life over that of her baby, regardless of the medical condition or treatment. And I think that may push a lot of pro-lifers to being pro-choice. Both saving the mother’s life and rape are probably why so many people are on the fence instead of choosing a side definitely, even though, you are absolutely correct that close to 99% don’t have anything to do with the safety/health of the mother OR instances of rape.

But when you have people giving what they believe to be absolute truth regarding medical procedures, when in fact, they have no idea what they’re talking about, it makes that 1% very important. Probably the only senario we all know about is ectopic pregancies and there are still “practicing catholics” who believe that removing the fallopian tube is still an abortion and teaching women that it is still an abortion, when in fact, it is not and that’s according to the Church. So there’s a little bit of “cafeterial catholic” going on both sides, isn’t there?

The truth of the matter is, with regards to a woman’s health when she’s pregnant, these over-the-top senarios given by some die-hard pro-choicers are as useless as the absolutes given by the die-hard pro-lifers, because the reality of it is, when a woman faces a life and death situation while preganant, if she’s a practicing Cathlic, she will work with her health care providers regarding her unique situation, as well as with her Priest to direct her choices. And the non-Catholic will not. And there will only be her and her choices at that time. And none of these contentious posts will matter. And there is nothing that anyone can do about it but her and her doctor. And we can only hope that she will make the right choice for her situation. But in the end, like it or not, today, it’s her choice. So stop fighting with trolls, and get out there and educate, because that’s the only way you’re going to prevent abortions. Fighting about unique medical conditions are useless because not only are they in the minority, but they’re just that: unique.

Like Kager says: Please provide actual examples of the medical conditions that would cause the scnarios you present.
I say: they can’t

I don’t find it hard to believe AT ALL that a woman would forgo life-saving treatments for the sake of her child. In fact it would seem kind of odd to me that she wouldn’t try to save the life of her baby at almost all costs. I’ve seen it, I’ve heard of it.

As 1ke said: 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.
And I say: now that’s a choice, isn’t it? Her choice. I don’t know what I would do in her position, but these are the senarios that matter, not the over-the-top nonsense ones that are posted in a desperate effort to try and make a point that doesn’t fit the situation anyway.

 

[Pawel_J]

I don’t know if this is true or not. In the spirit of Charity and until proven otherwise I’m going to assume it’s not.

But as a hypothetical, if a Pope wanted to “change the policy of the Catholic Church” as respects to a question of faith or morals, and died before being “allowed the time for that.” to me that would be a solid proof that the teaching authority of the Papacy is indeed protected by the Holy Ghost

No comments. You’d better read the book first.

 

[Hunho]

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.

Yallop’s book is an exercise in conspiracy theory regarding the death of Pope John Paul I. To get an assessment of Yallop and of another study of John Paul I’s death (John Cornwell’s A Thief in the Night) see Sandra Miesel’s article “A Quiet Death in Rome: Was Pope John Paul I Murdered?” (catholicity.com/commentary/miesel/05726.html). One part of Miesel’s article - on the “anti baby pills” issue" - is worth quoting:
“Yallop’s thesis that John Paul was about to approve the birth-control pill and do it in a statement to an American congressional delegation visiting Rome is simply ludicrous. Popes don’t reverse major moral judgments on the spur of the moment, much less to visiting politicians. Although as patriarch of Venice, John Paul had urged pastoral lenience toward contraceptors and sent cheerful greetings to the first baby born by in vitro fertilization, he had also supported Humanae Vitae. His alleged disagreement on the pill rests on an unpublished report Luciani made to Paul VI.”
Frankly I have no confidence in the Yallop book.

 

[Fox]

Great posts guys, that is why I like these forums.

 

[Seatuck]

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?

No. That doesn’t fit with the principal of double effect because the procedure is not a medical treatment for her . Now a more concrete example would be that a woman with a very diseased uterus could in fact have a hysterectomy while pregnant if that was necessary to save her life.
The best approach is of course to work to save both lives. Get the baby gestated to a point where survival is possible , deliver and then do the aggressive treatments.

 

[Highwayhound]

No

Saint Gianna Beretta Moplla 1922 - 1962 gave her life for her child. That is why she is a Saint today.

Antrim

I am glad someone mentione St. Gianna. She is a great model for people. Here is a link to a video about her life. It has two parts. The link will take you to part #1.

youtube.com/watch?v=_jGDyOkQ3yE

God bless

 

[Pawel_J]

Popes don’t reverse major moral judgments on the spur of the moment, …"

While reading this book I did not get the impression that this judgment had been made ‘on the spur of the moment’. On the contrary, I was convinced it had been well-thought-out by the pope long before he was elected. He discussed this issue several times with cardinal Villot, his Secretary of State, but cardinal Villot was of different opinion. This assumption goes well with the known opinion, that Albino Luciani was very liberal on many moral issues. His attitude was simply more human than his predecessors and this human attitude I like most in him.

 

[puzzleannie]

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?

.

please provide a link to a documented medical authority that such a scenario is possible. have you never heard of ceasarian surgery to deliver a baby when vaginal birt is too risky? Even if their were such an event where delivery by any method would present a risk to the mother, abortion does involve delivery, but of a dead rather than a live child, moreover a child dead through a procedure–and time delay–that poses even greater risk to the mother. do you know what abortion actually is?

 

[kage_ar]

please provide a link to a documented medical authority that such a scenario is possible. have you never heard of ceasarian surgery to deliver a baby when vaginal birt is too risky? Even if their were such an event where delivery by any method would present a risk to the mother, abortion does involve delivery, but of a dead rather than a live child, moreover a child dead through a procedure–and time delay–that poses even greater risk to the mother. do you know what abortion actually is?

Bump to reques the OP respond to my and this request to document.

 

[OraLabora]

Bump to reques the OP respond to my and this request to document.

Anecdotal evidence, my wife is a physician and has practiced in a small-town hospital for 28 years. She has done well over 1000 deliveries in that time as well as assisting at C-sections, and not one mother died in childbirth. Zero. Nada. There have however been a couple of unavoidable stillbirths.

But no mothers have died or been left permanently disabled.

 

[mariahloves]

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

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

Hi Maria, Welcome to the forums, by the way!

My post, which used strong language, was to emphasize that one can never directly and intentionally kill an unborn child for any reason. This is because direct and intentional killing of an innocent child is by its nature an evil act. Even if there were some good to come from it, or even immense good (such as saving all the people on earth) it cannot be done because we can’t choose to do evil – not even to obtain a good result.

There may be cases where the death of a child is permitted as a side effect to a medical procedure, but his death can never be sought. Some of those cases have been discussed above.

In the case of a mother being endangered by an unborn child, the moral analysis has to be different than one we use in self-defense against an unjust aggressor. This is because the child cannot be an unjust aggressor as it is innocent of any wrongdoing. The mother can and should protect her own life against some disease – but at the same time must protect the life of the child as well, to the extent that both goals can be accomplished. So, she isn’t protecting her life against the baby, but rather trying to protect her life *and *the baby.

I hope that helps clarify what I meant!
VC

 

[kage_ar]

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

Provide examples of any medical condition whee a mother’s life is threatened by her unborn child and the only way to avoid this is to directly kill the child. Just one will be fine.

 

[crazzeto]

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.

Under no circomstance is abortion ever morally permissable. She should leave her childs life in God’s hands, rather than trying to take the easy way out and aborting.

 

[Seatuck]

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

I don’t think there are any situations where the child must be killed to save the Mother. There are usually treatment methods for saving both. And as you have seen Mother’s are able to choose treatments that may unintentionally bring about the death of the child.

I would also remind you of Christ’s words that there is no greater act of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. What could fulfill that more than a Mother giving her life for her baby?
Fortunately this is not a decision that a Mother has to make.

 

[fix]

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

No, the child is never a disease. What may be hurting the mother is a pathologic condition. That condition should be treated. The child, by definition, is never a disease so the gestating child cannot hurt the mother.

 

[Corki]

I have a hard time with this. It’s a form of self defense, the child is going to cause it’s mother to die, but instead of the mother defending herself she instead gives in and let’s herself be killed? (NOT pro-choice by any means, but this seems over the top)

The child isn’t causing the mother to die. Some other disease or, more often I think, a problem of the woman’s *own body *is causing a risk (again, I have never heard of a case where the mother dying is a certainty).

When we hear of a mother throwing herself in oncoming traffic to save her child and getting hit by a car, it’s considered heroic. Or a mother who takes a bullet in a war-torn country to save her child, also heroic. How about the starving family where the motehr gives her last bit of food and water to save her child rather than herself? Why is it that a mother who is willing to risk her health or even her life for her child in this case is “over the top”? The only reason for the distinction is that the former examples don’t interrupt the pro-abortion mantra while the latter example does.