Abortion and Risk of the Mother Life

[Sky_River]

What if the pregnancy threatens the mother’ life, and the fetus won’t survive anyways? Why would it be wrong for the woman to have an abortion to save her own life, if the fetus will only live a few months at most, regardless? that doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[Rau]

What if the pregnancy threatens the mother’ life, and the fetus won’t survive anyways? Why would it be wrong for the woman to have an abortion to save her own life, if the fetus will only live a few months at most, regardless? that doesn’t make any sense to me.

There are 2 patients involved in this case. Both need the best available medical treatment, and it may or may not be insufficient to save each of them.

Medical treatment may have the side-effect of leading to death, but actions to cause death are not medical treatment, but killing.

 

[Hans_W]

Concern for the mother is appropriate. You correctly note that all babies are of the same value. Apparently, new mothers are of greater value? Or is it just that this innocent young girl is of more value than a nameless, faceless baby? I assume that balance (of which human is most valuable) might be altered if, instead of a young innocent girl, we were dealing with a promiscuous teenage prostitute? In that case, I assume you’d deny the abortion? Does this sound like a judgement we should be making?

Good questions. But what do you mean by ‘new mothers’? And why should they have greater value?

As I mentioned (many times), the zygotes, the fetuses, the unborn babies are of equal value. But we also have a second human being: the mother. No, it doesn’t matter if the mother is a raped teenager, or a married middle-class woman. The unborn is a gift of God, equally precious.
That should answer your 2nd and 3rd questions.

Let’s for now ignore all the emotional stuff about innocent girls, rape and promiscuous prostitutes. In our case the mother is a 9-year-old child, 15 weeks pregnant with twins. She weighs 36 kg (80 pounds). The doctors declare that her body is not able to carry twins. Her uterus is too small, her pelvis is too small. Her life is in danger.

So, where do you draw the line? We haven’t even considered the emotional stress of that poor girl who was molested and raped, apparently over years. Now we bargain over her life as well. Maybe, … if we can keep her alive for another few months, we can cut her babies out from her. A 9-year old body is not made to carry a child, let alone twins. It’s a freak accident that she got pregnant in the first place, at her age. And the psychological damage, on top of the initial molestation trauma, is too great to contemplate.

I agree that an abortion should be the absolute last resort, but get realistic here. I cannot think of a worse case. Is the 9-year-old any less innocent than the fetuses she was carrying? Are we allowed to consider the life of an already born child as well? (I have asked that question before, but everybody seems to concentrate on the unborn ones only).

I hope this answers your remaining questions.

The reaction of some (thanks goodness not all) Church officials was equally shocking: the mother of the 9-year-old was excommunicated; so were the doctors.
Interestingly, the stepfather who molested and raped that child was not excommunicated. A simple confession would have been enough to fix him up again with the Church.
In my opinion this guy (and all other rapists) should be castrated for good (I wonder if the Church objects to that, because it would prevent new life from being formed. That could be the topic of another thread).

 

[Sky_River]

There are 2 patients involved in this case. Both need the best available medical treatment, and it may or may not be insufficient to save each of them.

Medical treatment may have the side-effect of leading to death, but actions to cause death are not medical treatment, but killing.

What are some ways that the medical treatment in that situation could possibly indirectly lead to the death of the fetus, other than an abortion?

Either way, why would abortion be wrong in the situation the OP mentioned, if the fetus wouldn’t survive regardless?

 

[Rau]

What are some ways that the medical treatment in that situation could possibly indirectly lead to the death of the fetus, other than an abortion?

Either way, why would abortion be wrong in the situation the OP mentioned, if the fetus wouldn’t survive regardless?

I don’t have the medical expertise to answer.

But there is a comparable scenario which comes to mind - which is the licit treatment for ectopic pregnancy. The baby dies as a side-effect of the removal of the woman’s tube. There are alternative procedures (abortions) which directly kill the child.

It is not permitted (ethically) to **kill **an innocent.

 

[Sky_River]

I don’t have the medical expertise to answer.

But there is a comparable scenario which comes to mind - which is the licit treatment for ectopic pregnancy. The baby dies as a side-effect of the removal of the woman’s tube. There are alternative procedures (abortions) which directly kill the child.

It is not permitted (ethically) to **kill **an innocent.

What difference does it make, if the fetus dies directly or indirectly? The end result is the same.

 

[Rau]

Good questions. But what do you mean by ‘new mothers’? And why should they have greater value?

As I mentioned (many times), the zygotes, the fetuses, the unborn babies are of equal value. But we also have a second human being: the mother. No, it doesn’t matter if the mother is a raped teenager, or a married middle-class woman. The unborn is a gift of God, equally precious.
That should answer your 2nd and 3rd questions.

Let’s for now ignore all the emotional stuff about innocent girls, rape and promiscuous prostitutes. In our case the mother is a 9-year-old child, 15 weeks pregnant with twins. She weighs 36 kg (80 pounds). The doctors declare that her body is not able to carry twins. Her uterus is too small, her pelvis is too small. Her life is in danger.

So, where do you draw the line? We haven’t even considered the emotional stress of that poor girl who was molested and raped, apparently over years. Now we bargain over her life as well. Maybe, … if we can keep her alive for another few months, we can cut her babies out from her. A 9-year old body is not made to carry a child, let alone twins. It’s a freak accident that she got pregnant in the first place, at her age. And the psychological damage, on top of the initial molestation trauma, is too great to contemplate.

I agree that an abortion should be the absolute last resort, but get realistic here. I cannot think of a worse case. Is the 9-year-old any less innocent than the fetuses she was carrying? Are we allowed to consider the life of an already born child as well? (I have asked that question before, but everybody seems to concentrate on the unborn ones only).

I hope this answers your remaining questions.
…

I don’t assert that the new mother (the 9-year old girl) has greater value. Abortions always kill the child - the law (where abortion is legal) makes the decision about who has rights, and who has the most value, and those supporting abortion presumably agree.

All the ‘actors’ in this incident are of equal value - the twins, the 9-yr old mother and the hypothetical mother I mentioned. Your interlocutors only “concentrate on the unborn ones” because it is only they who anyone proposes to kill. If the scenario was one where killing the mother would save the unborn (if such could be imagined…), I’m sure your interlocutors would concentrate on why killing the (innocent) mother was not permissible.

There are 3 patients all due medical care. The domain of actions we can take is broad - essentially everything except actively killing one or more of them. The potential death of one as an unintended, undesired side-effect of treating another is permitted - but not actively killing one to benefit another.

As much as we mourn the lot of the young girl, it is not our prerogative to kill other innocents in a bid to improve her situation. We cannot right all wrongs.

 

[Rau]

What difference does it make, if the fetus dies directly or indirectly? The end result is the same.

Morality is not about the end-result. You may have heard “the ends don’t justify the means”. What do you think that means?

 

[Hans_W]

There are 3 patients all due medical care. The domain of actions we can take is broad - essentially everything except actively killing one or more of them. The potential death of one as an unintended, undesired side-effect of treating another is permitted - but not actively killing one to benefit another.

As much as we mourn the lot of the young girl, it is not our prerogative to kill other innocents in a bid to improve her situation. We cannot right all wrongs.

So, your advice would be to watch and let ‘nature take its course’. But the doctors advised that she (the 9-year-old child) is likely to die. If my previous post doesn’t make the situation sufficiently clear, then I give up.

 

[zz912]

So, your advice would be to watch and let ‘nature take its course’. But the doctors advised that she (the 9-year-old child) is likely to die. If my previous post doesn’t make the situation sufficiently clear, then I give up.

I’m still trying to figure out why you are ignoring the option of allowing the pregnancy to continue as far along as safely possible, and then delivering the babies.

You seem hell-bent (literally) on abortion as the only option.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I disagree. Mathematics is the only type of knowledge which is not based on induction. We therefore can get to ‘absolute truth’, without relying on any assumptions.
In my example, 17 is always a prime number, no matter what number system you use and wherever you are in time-space. The 17th number is only divisible by 1 and no other number smaller than 17.

So no need to rely on assumed truths for math? Please prove “1” without relying on an assumed truth.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

The reaction of some (thanks goodness not all) Church officials was equally shocking: the mother of the 9-year-old was excommunicated; so were the doctors.
Interestingly, the stepfather who molested and raped that child was not excommunicated. A simple confession would have been enough to fix him up again with the Church.
In my opinion this guy (and all other rapists) should be castrated for good (I wonder if the Church objects to that, because it would prevent new life from being formed. That could be the topic of another thread).

I’m no canon law expert, but I do know that having an abortion results in excommunication latae sententiae (i.e. automatic excommunication). This doesn’t apply if the person having the abortion is under the age of 16, but it may be that in this situation it applied to her mother since she is the one that made the decision. I’m not sure.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

I’m still trying to figure out why you are ignoring the option of allowing the pregnancy to continue as far along as safely possible, and then delivering the babies.

You seem hell-bent (literally) on abortion as the only option.

This.

 

[maryjk]

What are some ways that the medical treatment in that situation could possibly indirectly lead to the death of the fetus, other than an abortion?

Drugs used to treat cancer come to mind. The cancer drug, methotrexate is also used to treat other conditions such as Lupus or RA.

 

[choose_to_love]

@Hans re: no excommunication for stepfather rapist. Excommunication is not intended as a punishment, but as a medicinal action to get the attention of the person being excommunicated.

Unless there were a large contingent of people who think raping your stepchild was an acceptable practice, there is no need to have a canonical excommunication, because everyone already agrees that raping kids is bad, in all likelihood mortal sin for the perpetrator, etc.

However, as amply demonstrated by at least you on this thread, not everyone acknowledges the truth that one cannot kill an innocent on purpose, no matter the surrounding circumstances or the ends. Therefore, the Church needs to impose the medicinal remedy of excommunication to let folks know that such reasoning is wrong and a grave evil.

In addition, you mention that “all the stepfather had to do was confess”. While one may have to confess to the bishop if one has been excommunicated, that is all the doctors or grand-mom had do, too.

Killing the babies does not undo the trauma of the rape and abuse. It adds the additional trauma of the death of the babies, by those who are supposed to love and care for them, i.e., grandmom and the doctors.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

… In our case the mother is a 9-year-old child, 15 weeks pregnant with twins. …The reaction of some (thanks goodness not all) Church officials was equally shocking: the mother of the 9-year-old was excommunicated; so were the doctors…

I wonder what the reaction of the Church would have been if, instead of performing an abortion, the doctors had performed a removal of the fetuses in some non-destructive way, calling it a therapy for the girl? It might have been a bit more difficult than a standard abortion, but suppose it were done that way. And suppose that the doctors then attempt to keep the fetuses alive outside the womb the best they could. Given current technology, this does not appear possible at 15 weeks. But it is possible in principle. Then when the fetuses died, it would be an unavoidable consequence and unintended side-effect of the operation, not the direct purpose of the operation as in an abortion. Would that have been a cause of excommunication or not? You might accuse the doctors of poor technical judgement in not being able to save the lives of the fetuses, but you couldn’t accuse them of direct abortion. However the outcome would be essentially the same as with the abortion.

 

[mommamaree]

I wonder what the reaction of the Church would have been if, instead of performing an abortion, the doctors had performed a removal of the fetuses in some non-destructive way, calling it a therapy for the girl? It might have been a bit more difficult than a standard abortion, but suppose it were done that way. And suppose that the doctors then attempt to keep the fetuses alive outside the womb the best they could. Given current technology, this does not appear possible at 15 weeks. But it is possible in principle. Then when the fetuses died, it would be an unavoidable consequence and unintended side-effect of the operation, not the direct purpose of the operation as in an abortion. Would that have been a cause of excommunication or not? You might accuse the doctors of poor technical judgement in not being able to save the lives of the fetuses, but you couldn’t accuse them of direct abortion. However the outcome would be essentially the same as with the abortion.

I have wondered this same thing. The doctors felt her life was in danger. What if they had induced early labor or delivered the babies surgically? The babies most likely would have died, because they were too little to be viable, but it wouldn’t have involved any intentional or direct killing.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I wonder what the reaction of the Church would have been if, instead of performing an abortion, the doctors had performed a removal of the fetuses in some non-destructive way, calling it a therapy for the girl? It might have been a bit more difficult than a standard abortion, but suppose it were done that way. And suppose that the doctors then attempt to keep the fetuses alive outside the womb the best they could. Given current technology, this does not appear possible at 15 weeks. But it is possible in principle. Then when the fetuses died, it would be an unavoidable consequence and unintended side-effect of the operation, not the direct purpose of the operation as in an abortion. Would that have been a cause of excommunication or not? You might accuse the doctors of poor technical judgement in not being able to save the lives of the fetuses, but you couldn’t accuse them of direct abortion. However the outcome would be essentially the same as with the abortion.

To rephrase your scenario- the doctors do not intend to cause the death of either, the doctors do intend to do their best to save both, their actions result in the unintended death of one- no immoral actions on the part of the doctors (here with the assumption that the death wasn’t a result of willful incompetence). Throw in the current limitations on medicine and medical technology and there is even less of an argument that they engaged in immoral actions. Its not the ends, its the means. Did their best to save both and both die, both live, one lives, one dies- nothing immoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To rephrase your scenario- the doctors do not intend to cause the death of either, the doctors do intend to do their best to save both, their actions result in the unintended death of one- no immoral actions on the part of the doctors (here with the assumption that the death wasn’t a result of willful incompetence). Throw in the current limitations on medicine and medical technology and there is even less of an argument that they engaged in immoral actions. Its not the ends, its the means. Did their best to save both and both die, both live, one lives, one dies- nothing immoral.

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.

 

[zz912]

I wonder what the reaction of the Church would have been if, instead of performing an abortion, the doctors had performed a removal of the fetuses in some non-destructive way, calling it a therapy for the girl? It might have been a bit more difficult than a standard abortion, but suppose it were done that way. And suppose that the doctors then attempt to keep the fetuses alive outside the womb the best they could. Given current technology, this does not appear possible at 15 weeks. But it is possible in principle. Then when the fetuses died, it would be an unavoidable consequence and unintended side-effect of the operation, not the direct purpose of the operation as in an abortion. Would that have been a cause of excommunication or not? You might accuse the doctors of poor technical judgement in not being able to save the lives of the fetuses, but you couldn’t accuse them of direct abortion. However the outcome would be essentially the same as with the abortion.

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.