Abortion: Absolutely NO Exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GIMJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GIMJ

Guest
Today I read the Fr. Pavonne’s column on abortion called Absolutely No Exceptions. I generally agree, but take issue with one statement:
“The children of mothers with medically complicated pregnancies must have equal protection.”
Click to expand...
Yes, but what of the mothers? Mustn’t they be guaranteed equal protection as well? When the survival of the mother or child are mutually exclusive, doesn’t the mother have the right to save her own life (i.e., an ectopic pregnancy)?

I agree that abortion is wrong in all other circumstances, but mothers have a right to life too. I see this as the one exception to abortion since I regard it as a matter of self-defense.

I’d be happy to be shown why I am wrong on this issue, because I really don’t understand the argument against my position for self-defense. I can’t defend the NO Exceptions stance until I can justify it.

priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2007/07-07-02absolutelynoexceptions.htm
 
By the way…

Are there any documented cases of the scenario I described where the mother will undoubtedly die unless the child is destroyed first? I’m just wondering if I’ve brought up a moot point.
 
This is a Catch-22 situation, lose-lose. In the end it is up to the doctor and the family.
 
GIMJ said:
By the way…

Are there any documented cases of the scenario I described where the mother will undoubtedly die unless the child is destroyed first? I’m just wondering if I’ve brought up a moot point.
Click to expand...
Many. Most ectopic pregnancies will kill the mother long before the baby is old enough to be removed and incubated. There are also cases of diabetes and heart and kidney disease that make pregnancy deadly. If the mother dies, the baby dies too, in these cases. It’s not either/or. But the majority of abortions don’t happen in those circumstances. Many of the pregnancies that would once have killed the mother now end with a C-section and some ICU time for mother and child. But having a baby would still kill quite a few women. It’s especially common when the mother is very young, say under 20.
 
According to the recent poll, the use of abortion for in case the death of mother is 3.3% (fetal health) and 2.8% (maternal health).

Take a look at this statistics, if people truly think abortion is used for extreme cases such as the death of the mother, it isn’t the primary reason to do it so.

**25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other **

In a 1987 for doing late abortion is as follows,

71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
 
In eptopic pregnancy the portion of the tube that threatens the mothers life can be removed. The intent is to save the mothers life the unintended consequence is the death of the child if the child is still alive,often it is not. Just as a woman who has cancer of the uterus she could have her uterous removed to save her life. The intent is not to sterilize but to save the mother’s life the unintended consequence is she is now infertile.

Using methotrexate to expel the child is a direct attack on the child and is not allowed from what I understand
 
Now, an ectopic pregnancy, if it survives long enough to grow a little, can be very dangerous to mom, and CAN’T, as in, it is unable to keep growing. A fallopian is so tiny, and isn’t meant to contain a growing baby. So the baby can not survive and will do much harm to the mother. My best friend was in the hospital for a week because of complications related to ectopic pregnancy and was in extreme pain, very sick, and on top of all of that she was devastated with the loss of her baby. Her pregancy ended on it’s own, but if it hadn’t I don’t know what options she would have had. I am very much against abortion. The Catholic Churches view on the matter is one of the first things that attracted me. I would like to see how others answer this one.
 
GIMJ said:
Yes, but what of the mothers? Mustn’t they be guaranteed equal protection as well? When the survival of the mother or child are mutually exclusive, doesn’t the mother have the right to save her own life (i.e., an ectopic pregnancy)?
Click to expand...
godsplanforlife.org/Teachings/Life%20Of%20The%20Mother.htm

The Catholic Response When Pregnancy Threatens The Life Of The Mother

When pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, it is blatantly immoral to directly kill the child in order to save the mother.

Having stated a firm moral principle, it is also important to teach that therapeutic efforts intended to save the mother’s life are permitted even if it is known that such efforts may have the undesirable result of killing the child. Virtually any therapy or surgery whose primary purpose is to save the life of the mother is permitted, including, for example, chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer, even though chemotherapy will likely kill the child. Such treatments are permitted when it is quite apparent that without them, the mother would die and as a result, the baby would die also.

Another difficult situation is presented when the mother is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy (extrauterine pregnancy). One such example is a tubal pregnancy, where the fetus fails to descend normally down the fallopian tube into the uterus and remains in the tube where it continues to grow. Such a situation, if not corrected will likely result in death for both mother and child. It is therefore permissible to surgically remove the fetus from the tube to save the mother’s life. Here, the intent is not to kill the fetus, but to move it. When technology offers a destination that will preserve the life of the fetus, such as the uterus or an external incubator, the fetus may then live. In the meantime, the fetus will unfortunately die, but not by direct intent. Hence this procedure is permissible according to Catholic moral teaching. In exercising judgment in these complicated situations, men of good conscience will see that it is the intent that is important.

In political terms, the above teaching does not offer an exception for “life of the mother.” If such an exception were offered, it would in effect grant moral permission to directly kill an unborn child to end a pregnancy (when a mother’s life is threatened) rather than directing the medical attention to therapies which save the mother’s life and perhaps the child’s as well.
 
Philothea53 said:
In political terms, the above teaching does not offer an exception for “life of the mother.” If such an exception were offered, it would in effect grant moral permission to directly kill an unborn child to end a pregnancy (when a mother’s life is threatened) rather than directing the medical attention to therapies which save the mother’s life and perhaps the child’s as well.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That’s the answer I’m looking for. I believe I understand now.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly:
If a person is inadvertently killed in the just pursuit of some other good, then it is an unfortunate accident, but an accident nonetheless. If a person is killed for the killing’s own sake, it is morally wrong, even if there is some other positive effect.

Take this scenario: If a soldier were protecting his comrades during an urban shootout and unavoidably injured or killed civilians, he would be in the moral clear. If, however, another soldier were recklessly firing his weapon for the sake of causing damage or in retaliation without regard to the potential victims, he would be morally culpable, even though his comrades were protected as a result.

The end result is the same: innocents die, but the intention of the different soldiers makes one’s action moral and the other’s action immoral.
 
GIMJ said:
Thanks! That’s the answer I’m looking for. I believe I understand now.

Let me make sure I understand you correctly:
If a person is inadvertently killed in the just pursuit of some other good, then it is an unfortunate accident, but an accident nonetheless. If a person is killed for the killing’s own sake, it is morally wrong, even if there is some other positive effect.

Take this scenario: If a soldier were protecting his comrades during an urban shootout and unavoidably injured or killed civilians, he would be in the moral clear. If, however, another soldier were recklessly firing his weapon for the sake of causing damage or in retaliation without regard to the potential victims, he would be morally culpable, even though his comrades were protected as a result.

The end result is the same: innocents die, but the intention of the different soldiers makes one’s action moral and the other’s action immoral.
Click to expand...
Just as in the case of the unborn child, ‘unavoidable’ means attempting all other actions that could protect his comrades without injuring or killing the civilians.
 
Philothea53 said:
Just as in the case of the unborn child, ‘unavoidable’ means attempting all other actions that could protect his comrades without injuring or killing the civilians.
Click to expand...
It’s strange to have such a sudden change of heart, but I have been convinced. It feels good to say I’m 100% Pro-Life, without having to qualify my statement.

I now oppose the legalization of abortion in all circumstances. Removing a child from a fillopian tube is not in and of itself evil because it is intended to save life. If and when the day comes that a removed child may be placed elsewhere and preserved, then we must do so, but creating an exception for abortion in the case of the mother’s life removes that obligation.
 
Okay, but now you need to go one step further →

100% Pro-Life from conception to natural death
No excuses, no apologies, no compromises.

In addition to abortion, 100% pro-life includes being against embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide and the death penalty.

God bless you!
 
Mannyfit75 said:
According to the recent poll, the use of abortion for in case the death of mother is 3.3% (fetal health) and 2.8% (maternal health).
Click to expand...
I believe that the “fetal health” portion would more likely be in cases of known birth defects rather than potential death to the mother.
 
Philothea53 said:
Okay, but now you need to go one step further →

100% Pro-Life from conception to natural death
No excuses, no apologies, no compromises.

In addition to abortion, 100% pro-life includes being against embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, assisted suicide and the death penalty.

God bless you!
Click to expand...
I agree with you on embryonic stem cell research (as well as “designer” babies and so-called alternative fertilization techniques), euthanasia, and all forms of suicide.

I don’t want to get off topic, but I will reply to your last part:
I *think *I am against the death penalty, but it is harder to make a case against the death penalty. I see the legal, practical benefits of a death penalty, and in some cases the moral advantage. Unlike the killing of innocent humans which can never be justified, the killing of humans deserving of death CAN. That said, what can be justified should not necessarily be done, but it does present a dilemma.

If someone calls me a nasty name, they deserve to be called something nasty as well. If some steals my car, they deserve to be deprived of their property and freedom as well.

Likewise, the murderer deserves to lose his life, and the death penalty is justified.

In every situation, what is justified is not necessarily the best course of action. If someone calls me something nasty, it’s probably better to accept their rudeness and let the buck stop with me. If someone is a thief, however, they ought to be punished as a deterrent to their (and other thieves) burgling habits. If someone is a murderer, they deserve to die, but I am unsure whether carrying out that penalty is in their or society’s best interest.

Let’s not make this into a debate over whether the death penalty is ever right/is always wrong. If you want me to consider your point of view, please be respectful of mine and direct me to articles or research that back up your absolute intolerance of the death penalty.
 
One can be a Catholic in good standing and not oppose the death penalty. Catholic tradition supports the right of the state to exercise the power of the sword. Any idea to the contrary is pure modernism.
 
What I have seen in cases where the pregnant mother is in kidney or heart failure, is to deliver or C-section the baby very prematurely, and then just hope and pray it doesn’t die. It’s called a “Hail Mary” delivery, much like the Endzone pass in Football.

This comes from a medical case, although I forget the name of the journal:

This one surgeon knew he was going to have to deliver a baby at 22 weeks because the mom was in both heart and kidney failure. The surgeon was at a Research 1 institution, so he contacted a physicist there who was working on a supersaturated oxygen solution. They took that solution, which releases alot of oxygen when warmed, and pumped it through the baby’s lungs for 8-10 weeks in a NICU. This kept the lungs wet, and functioning. The surgeon even admitted that this was the biggest long shot he’d ever taken, and was positive it wouldn’t work. He just figured he’d try it for the heck of it. Well it worked, and the child is now 5 years old.

As long as the intent when delivering or removing the baby, is to TRY (even if it is a huge long shot) and save the child, it is moral to do so.
 
East_and_West said:
One can be a Catholic in good standing and not oppose the death penalty. Catholic tradition supports the right of the state to exercise the power of the sword. Any idea to the contrary is pure modernism.
Click to expand...
Not modernism, but teaching of the Church. "Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.” (USCCB) I haven’t time to discuss this at length but will leave you with a few paragraphs quoted from americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0195.asp You can find more information at usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/dpvatican.shtml

"Teaching of the U.S. bishops

The Catholic bishops of the United States have provided careful guidance about this difficult issue, applying the teaching of the universal Church to our American culture. Along with the leadership assemblies of many Churches (for example. American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians), the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty. First articulated in 1974, the bishops’ position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment. Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

In their 1980 statement, the bishops begin by noting that punishment, “since it involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another,” must be justifiable. They acknowledge that the Christian tradition has for a long time recognized a government’s right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. The bishops ask, however, if capital punishment is still justifiable in the present circumstances in the United States.

In this context, the bishops enter the debate about deterrence and retribution. They acknowledge that capital punishment certainly prevents the criminal from committing more crimes, yet question whether it prevents others from doing so. Similarly, concerning retribution, the bishops support the arguments against death as an appropriate form of punishment. The bishops add that reform is a third reason given to justify punishment, but it clearly does not apply in the case of capital punishment. And so they affirm: “We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.”
 
I apologize for the lengthy off-topic death penalty post. If there is more discussion to be had about the death penalty, which area would it be best to take it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top