A woman's right

[Rence]

Bumping a sort of old thread with a question:

People are asking for actual, verifiable scenarios where a medical condition would require that an unborn baby be killed in order to save the mother’s life. It seems like the only consistent example of this anyone can come up with is ectopic pregnancy. So I was just wondering, what is the Church’s position on ectopic pregnancies? Or more specifically, what is the Church’s position on treating ectopic pregnancies (which necessarily involves the death of the embryo)?

There really aren’t any verifiable senarios where a medical condition would require the direct abortion, at least not that I know of. For a tubal pregnancy, removal of the tube is the usual medical treatment for an ectopic pregnancy and IS allowed by the Church. Removal of the fetus, without removal of the tube for example, is NOT allowed.

According to the Church, the primary intervention cannot be the removal of a fetus at all. The primary intervention has to treat the medical condition itself. For example, if a pregnant woman comes to find that she has a cancerous or otherwise diseased uterus, she CAN have the uterus removed as a medical treatment for that condition according to the teaching of the Church. Removal of the uterus is primary, the fact that there is a baby in it is secondary. The primary intention cannot be to simply remove and let a baby die. She CANNOT have the fetus removed (and not remove the uterus as well) under the rules of the Church, unless it is viable and can survive with medical treatment outside the uterus, and efforts have to be made to save the baby.

If a woman chooses to be treated for the cancer (chemo or radiation), she can either wait until the baby is viable and have the baby delivered prematurely. However, if it is judged by her doctor that she must be treated asap, she is allowed to be treated for the cancer or disease, being pregnant, though it is a risk to the baby just like any other medication or treatment one is under, but it’s not the primary intervention. The primary intervention is to treat the cancer/disease. But I find that most women wait. But they can choose to go ahead with the treatment, as long as the primary intervention is not to remove the baby.

If for some reason, a women cannot bring a baby to term, she CANNOT remove the baby with the intention of killing the baby. But she can have the baby removed prematurely when it is viable. The intention is to save both. Not kill one for the other, or “let the mom die”.

I can’t think of an example off the top of my head where a direct abortion is a legitamate treatment for saving a woman’s life.

 

[Rence]

Ectopic pregnancy, as well as another, though I forget the name. It’s when the fetus itself turns into a tumor and will kill the mother if it is not removed. I honestly forget what it is, and it will not become viable.

I think you mean Blighted Ovum, and yes, removal of the fetus is not an abortion because the baby died. Basically, the egg is fertilized and has a placenta but no embryo - just an empty sac. They usually determine this by ultrasound as well as diminished HCG levels.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

I think you mean Blighted Ovum, and yes, removal of the fetus is not an abortion because the baby died. Basically, the egg is fertilized and has a placenta but no embryo - just an empty sac. They usually determine this by ultrasound as well as diminished HCG levels.

Thank you. That’s what I was thinking of.

 

[ac_claire]

Ok, correct me if I have it wrong. Basically if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, it can be treated ethically with surgery (laparotomy), since what we’re trying to do there (primary purpose) is surgically remove or repair the damaged fallopian tube to preserve the health and safety of the mother.

However, the non-surgical means of resolving the ectopic pregnancy with drugs like methotrexate…which is what’s used in a regular chemical abortion…would *not *be allowed since the primary purpose of taking the drug in that case is to kill the baby. Is that basically right?

ETA: I understand that in both cases, the baby will die. But I’m trying to figure out which procedure (if any) would fall under the principle of double effect.

 

[Rence]

Ok, correct me if I have it wrong. Basically if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, it can be treated ethically with surgery (laparotomy), since what we’re trying to do there (primary purpose) is surgically remove or repair the damaged fallopian tube to preserve the health and safety of the mother.

However, the non-surgical means of resolving the ectopic pregnancy with drugs like methotrexate…which is what’s used in a regular chemical abortion…would *not *be allowed since the primary purpose of taking the drug in that case is to kill the baby. Is that basically right?

ETA: I understand that in both cases, the baby will die. But I’m trying to figure out which procedure (if any) would fall under the principle of double effect.

Yes. The removal of the tube definitely falls under the principle of double effect. Taking the methotrexate is not allowed because it’s primary intention is to abort the fetus, which is never allowed.

 

[ac_claire]

Yes. The removal of the tube definitely falls under the principle of double effect. Taking the methotrexate is not allowed because it’s primary intention is to abort the fetus, which is never allowed.

Got it, thanks!