Abortion and Risk of the Mother Life

[devonsams]

Hello, I would like to ask what about the cases of abortion when it puts in risk the life of the mother?

There was a famous case here in Brazil of a 9 years old who got pregnant, the doctors said she could die because her uterus was not ready to receieve a baby and it could break.

I understand all the arguments against abortion, but when it is about to save a Mother Life? and when it is a child of 9 years old? The church can change this or it will never do?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Direct killing of a person remains immoral - that cannot change and is an ontological truth. Going in and intentionally killing an enwombed child is immoral. The extreme case you describe is addressed in the Bishops’ document on Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services:
*#47 Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.*This document contains guiding principles. You may also want to click on the link the the full document above and read paragraphs 45 and following for further detail. A case study on the matter occurred a few years ago in Phoenix involving Bishop Olmsted. I have a description of that incident in this blog post if you scroll down (or just keyword “Phoenix” to jump to that part).

 

[devonsams]

The case which i was referring is this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazilian_girl_abortion_case

 

[jediliz]

The 9 year old was a victim of sexual abuse. The baby was evidence of that abuse. You remove the evidence and the abuse will continue.

 

[Hans_W]

Direct killing of a person remains immoral - that cannot change and is an ontological truth. Going in and intentionally killing an enwombed child is immoral. The extreme case you describe is addressed in the Bishops’ document on Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services:
*#47 Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.*This document contains guiding principles. You may also want to click on the link the the full document above and read paragraphs 45 and following for further detail. A case study on the matter occurred a few years ago in Phoenix involving Bishop Olmsted. I have a description of that incident in this blog post if you scroll down (or just keyword “Phoenix” to jump to that part).

What is an “ontological truth”?

Coming back to the original question: why is it a question at all?
If one person out of two is going to die, we must let the mother live - of course!

The problem then boils down to probabilities. If there is a 50% chance of the mother to survive, do you take the risk? Putting myself into that poor woman’s shoes, I would say please no.

 

[Hans_W]

The 9 year old was a victim of sexual abuse. The baby was evidence of that abuse. You remove the evidence and the abuse will continue.

So, we just keep it for the ‘evidence’ and let the poor girl suffer and die???

 

[1ke]

What is an “ontological truth”?

Ontological has to do with philosophy and metaphysics. It is sufficient to say it is THE truth in this case.

Coming back to the original question: why is it a question at all?

Because some people, apparentl you included, seem to think we can kill babies.

If one person out of two is going to die, we must let the mother live - of course!

We cannot kill the baby.

It is incumbent upon the physician to work to save both. He has two patients, not one.

The problem then boils down to probabilities. If there is a 50% chance of the mother to survive, do you take the risk? Putting myself into that poor woman’s shoes, I would say please no.

We have a duty to love and respect both. Both are patients. We cannot kill one of them.

 

[1ke]

Hello, I would like to ask what about the cases of abortion when it puts in risk the life of the mother?

Abortion is murder and is always a grave evil. There are NO circumstances in which we can purposely kill an innocent baby.

There was a famous case here in Brazil of a 9 years old who got pregnant, the doctors said she could die because her uterus was not ready to receieve a baby and it could break.

What we CANNOTdo, is kill the baby. The moral option would be to treat both patients.

I understand all the arguments against abortion, but when it is about to save a Mother Life?

The baby is no less a baby in this situation. so if you understand the arguments against abortion, why are you unable to apply them to this “situation”?

and when it is a child of 9 years old?

Then we must love and care for both patients.

The church can change this or it will never do?

No, the truth cannot change.

 

[Hans_W]

Ontological has to do with philosophy and metaphysics. It is sufficient to say it is THE truth in this case.

Because some people, apparentl you included, seem to think we can kill babies.

We cannot kill the baby.

It is incumbent upon the physician to work to save both. He has two patients, not one.

We have a duty to love and respect both. Both are patients. We cannot kill one of them.

Ontology is part of philosophy and deals with knowledge.
There is very little, outside of mathematics, of which we have absolute knowledge. That’s the problem of induction.

You write: "Because some people, apparentl you included, seem to think we can kill babies"
I very, very strongly object to this accusation. I have always been, and always will be against abortion. But there are cases when the mother’s life is at risk and it is naive to say “It is incumbent upon the physician to work to save both”, especially if that poor 9-year-old girl has been raped. She is very likely to die, from what I can gather.

 

[devonsams]

Hans W, so how you will still be a catholic?

As far as I know the Catholic Church will not change the doctrine of abortion even on this cases (?)

So if I am not wrong, a catholic can’t go against the church and its moral doctrine.

 

[1ke]

I very, very strongly object to this accusation. I have always been, and always will be against abortion.

And yet, you are asserting abortion to be a moral option here. Or are you not asserting that?

But there are cases when the mother’s life is at risk and it is naive to say “It is incumbent upon the physician to work to save both”

It is not naive. It is the truth. And moreover it is the only medically ethical response-- two patients, both needing and deserving care.

especially if that poor 9-year-old girl has been raped. She is very likely to die, from what I can gather.

Conjecture regarding possible complications are just that, conjecture. Regardless of what may or may not happen in the course of the pregnancy, what we cannot do is kill the baby.

What we can do is treat both patients and deal with medical situations if they arise through ethical treatment. Ethical treatment can never include the murder of a baby in the womb.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Hello, I would like to ask what about the cases of abortion when it puts in risk the life of the mother?

There was a famous case here in Brazil of a 9 years old who got pregnant, the doctors said she could die because her uterus was not ready to receieve a baby and it could break.

I understand all the arguments against abortion, but when it is about to save a Mother Life? and when it is a child of 9 years old? The church can change this or it will never do?

Scenario- A mother and child are drowning, the police officer is only sure he can save one, trying to save both may very likely cause them both to die.

Questions- Is it moral for the police officer to shoot one in the head in order to save the other one?

 

[Hans_W]

Scenario- A mother and child are drowning, the police officer is only sure he can save one, trying to save both may very likely cause them both to die.

Questions- Is it moral for the police officer to shoot one in the head in order to save the other one?

Is this supposed to be an analogy??

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Is this supposed to be an analogy??

It’s not an analogy, it’s the OP’s question stripped of the baggage associated with the “intentionally kill the unborn child IOT save the mother” scenario. At the core of both is- 2 innocent people (mother and child in both) at risk of dying, 1 person authorized to act IOT save them (doctor and police officer), the risk that both will die if an attempt is made to save both, the assumption that the death of one would increase the likelihood of the other surviving.

I’ve presented my above scenario and question before to other people who argue that it’s moral to intentionally cause the death of the child (odd they never seem to hold that intentionally causing the death of the mother IOT save the child is perfectly ok) and almost none of them have ever answered that it was perfectly moral for the police officer to shoot one IOT save the other.

 

[Hans_W]

And yet, you are asserting abortion to be a moral option here. Or are you not asserting that?

It is not naive. It is the truth. And moreover it is the only medically ethical response-- two patients, both needing and deserving care.

Conjecture regarding possible complications are just that, conjecture. Regardless of what may or may not happen in the course of the pregnancy, what we cannot do is kill the baby.

What we can do is treat both patients and deal with medical situations if they arise through ethical treatment. Ethical treatment can never include the murder of a baby in the womb.

Ignoring that bizarre picture painted by oldcatholicguy of a police officer having to shoot somebody in order to save somebody else from drowning - let’s get back to the original situation:

A 9-year-old girl has been raped and becomes pregnant. Not surprisingly, the doctors declare that her life is in danger if she were to carry the pregnancy through.

The story was new to me and I had to do some reading. The girl weighed 80 pounds and was pregnant with twins. She had been raped repeatedly by her stepfather, apparently for years. One cannot imagine the emotional stress that poor girl had to go through. Then the mother and the doctors got excommunicated for terminating this pregnancy.

This is really sickening. The weird thing is that the stepfather was not excommunicated. Apparently that was not a crime serious enough. In my opinion this girl had every right to get an abortion if she or her mother felt it was right for her. No child that age should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. This is foolish, not just dangerous.

I was happy to learn that I am not alone in my opinion and that many clergy, including archbishops stood on her side. I am sure that the vast majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide would have used reason and compassion in that case.

I have no intention of carrying on with this discussion. I give you the last word. No doubt I will get blasted for allowing two(!) innocent lives being murdered. I would just love to know how our present Holy Father would judge that case. He is intelligent and is a man of compassion. He doesn’t necessarily stick to the old rules. Hopefully we’ll see some fresh wind blowing a few old cobwebs away.

 

[devonsams]

My problem here is how a catholic can be coherent and still defend her abortion? As far as i know no catholic could support her abortion unless the church change its
Teachings.

 

[1ke]

In my opinion this girl had every right to get an abortion if she or her mother felt it was right for her.

No doubt I will get blasted for allowing two(!) innocent lives being murdered.

So, your earlier statement that you always have been and always will be against abortion was not true.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Ignoring that bizarre picture painted by oldcatholicguy of a police officer having to shoot somebody in order to save somebody else from drowning - let’s get back to the original situation:

A 9-year-old girl has been raped and becomes pregnant. Not surprisingly, the doctors declare that her life is in danger if she were to carry the pregnancy through.

The story was new to me and I had to do some reading. The girl weighed 80 pounds and was pregnant with twins. She had been raped repeatedly by her stepfather, apparently for years. One cannot imagine the emotional stress that poor girl had to go through. Then the mother and the doctors got excommunicated for terminating this pregnancy.

This is really sickening. The weird thing is that the stepfather was not excommunicated. Apparently that was not a crime serious enough. In my opinion this girl had every right to get an abortion if she or her mother felt it was right for her. No child that age should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. This is foolish, not just dangerous.

I was happy to learn that I am not alone in my opinion and that many clergy, including archbishops stood on her side. I am sure that the vast majority of the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide would have used reason and compassion in that case.

I have no intention of carrying on with this discussion. I give you the last word. No doubt I will get blasted for allowing two(!) innocent lives being murdered. I would just love to know how our present Holy Father would judge that case. He is intelligent and is a man of compassion. He doesn’t necessarily stick to the old rules. Hopefully we’ll see some fresh wind blowing a few old cobwebs away.

My scenario is only “bizarre” for those who don’t wish to acknowledge that an abortion is an intentional taking of an innocent human life. The only difference between what the police officer in my scenario did and what the doctor does during an abortion is the tool in which he intentionally causes the death of an innocent human life.

 

[zz912]

Why are abortion and full-term pregnancy the only two options the OP is willing to consider?

What about letting the pregnancy develop as far along as possible without putting the girl in jeopardy, and then delivering the twins? Why is this option ignored?

I thought the OP said he was opposed to abortion. Why wouldn’t someone opposed to abortion be willing to consider a different alternative?

 

[Hans_W]

What about letting the pregnancy develop as far along as possible without putting the girl in jeopardy, and then delivering the twins?

So, we should just treat this 9-year-old girl as a breading machine?!

Some earlier poster even suggested to keep the thing going as ‘evidence’ that she was raped. Perhaps we could have paraded this little child around as a showcase to demonstrate to the world how the Catholic Church sticks to its principles.

You write: " … without putting the girl in jeopardy …"
Obviously, we only need to keep her alive. What about her emotional life? Can anybody imagine the trauma, pain, fear, shame, anguish and guilt that little girl would have had to endure for another few months.

Two days ago I would have thought this situation was a no-brainer. I would love to know what percentage of the 1.2 billion Catholics world-wide would be on the side of compassion for a 9-year-old girl who was raped. I am sure it would be the vast majority.