Abortion and Risk of the Mother Life

[oldcatholicguy]

But I think someone (not me) might argue that the doctors in my modified scenario only paid lip service to saving the babies, because they knew they were unable to care for them after their removal so early. But as others have already mentioned, that is also the case with the approved treatment for ectopic pregnancy - the embryo is removed along with the portion of the tube, and left to die.

-The only person who knows if the doctors in your scenario were “paying lip service” is God. Our judgment on the morality of their actions would have to be based on external factors that we could know to a degree of certainty.
-The limits of medical technology would, I believe, be the deciding factor in what the doctors do IOT try to save the child. If at some point in the future our medical technology is at the point in which the embryo from a ectopic pregnancy can be save it would no longer be allowable to just leave him/her to die.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First, the girl wasn’t in immediate danger. No one denies that the pregnancy is dangerous for a girl that young, but there are NO reports that she was in immediate danger. There are premies who have survived at 22-24 weeks. It doesn’t happen all the time, but it does happen. And the most weight gain and body changes in pregnancy happen in the third trimester. If they could watch her diet very strictly, keep good tabs on her, regular check ups, and monitor her very closely, they could know if something was going wrong right away.

It is possilbe that the child, even at 9, could maybe hold the pregnancy for 30 or more weeks. If the doctors allow the pregnancy to continue until it is no longer safe for the girl, and then deliver the babies. Then they have acted in the best interests of all patients and no excommunication would arise. They would be administering the best medical treatment they could that is available to them.

However, if they intentionally deliver the babies earlier than necessary, this would be sinful.

The decision as to what is necessary is a practical and medical one, not a theological one. The doctors may have thought that the girl was in imminent danger. That would not be sinful. You might argue with their decision on practical grounds, but unless you can prove that the doctors intentionally disregarded their own medical knowledge, you cannot prove that they sinned. Well, in this case they did because they performed a direct abortion. But in my modified scenario, what then?

 

[zz912]

The decision as to what is necessary is a practical and medical one, not a theological one. The doctors may have thought that the girl was in imminent danger. That would not be sinful. You might argue with their decision on practical grounds, but unless you can prove that the doctors intentionally disregarded their own medical knowledge, you cannot prove that they sinned. Well, in this case they did because they performed a direct abortion. But in my modified scenario, what then?

In your modified scenario, it depends if the girl is truly in medical danger or not. There is a strong undercurrent in modern medicine to practice “defensive medicine” and to recommend abortion for any and every minor medical issue. If the girl is truly in medical danger, deliver the babies. If she is not, then allow the pregnancy to continue while it is safe for her. When it gets dangerous, deliver the babies.

And I don’t need to “prove” they sinned, that’s not my place. God decides that, and He gave us the Church to guide us.