Abortion and Roman Catholics

[Semper_Fi_1]

stanley123:

According to:

http://www.days.org/birthcontrol.html

“Almost all birth control pills, drugs and devices, except the condom, are abortifacient in nature; that is, they allow the sperm to fertilize the egg and produce a newly formed baby. But, because the baby cannot timely attach to the uterus lining and receive nourishment, it dies and is eliminated in the next menstrual cycle.”

As far as I know (but I could be wrong here) the Catholic Church excommunicates those women who have an abortion but does not excommunicate those women who take the pill, which is abortifacient in nature. If the Church is serious about abortion, then why does it not excommunicate those women who take the pill?

As you quoted already, it it “almost” all birth control pills. Some birth control pills can be used for hormonal treatments. if the drug is prescribed for something other than preventing pregnancy, then there would have been no sin commited and hence no need for an excommunication to take place. The Church is steadfastly against any and all firms of contraception. I suggest you take a look at Theology of the Body.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Joseph Bilodeau:

I agree with you, sir, that playing word games that lump such medical treatments into the same category as direct abortion is less than honest, and since you ask for forgiveness, I forgive you, but please try not to do it again.

Since I have not divided abortions into direct and indirect abortions in any of my posts the distinction is purely yours and I cannot be accused of playing word games if I do not buy into your distinction. The distinction seems to be a word game somewhat similar to the refusal to call a divorce a divorce and to term it an annulment. I find that on some moral issues the Orthodox are well able to call a spade a spade whereas Catholics favour subtle terminology which glosses over what is in fact occurring.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

Fr Ambrose:

…I find that on some moral issues the Orthodox are well able to call a spade a spade whereas Catholics favour subtle terminology which glosses over what is in fact occurring.

It would be more correct to say that the Catholic Church favors precise terminology which unambiguously defines what is in fact occuring, and just as important, what is in fact not occuring.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

Since I have not divided abortions into direct and indirect abortions in any of my posts the distinction is purely yours and I cannot be accused of playing word games if I do not buy into your distinction. The distinction seems to be a word game somewhat similar to the refusal to call a divorce a divorce and to term it an annulment. I find that on some moral issues the Orthodox are well able to call a spade a spade whereas Catholics favour subtle terminology which glosses over what is in fact occurring.

Fr Ambrose - in all fairness, you are trying to make of this a mountain when in fact it is a molehill. The RC position is well known and established. It has been explained clearly by a number of posters in the forum.

A direct abortion is the process of purposefully terminating a pregnancy. They are forbidden by the Church.

When in a life saving emergency such as an ectopic pregnancy, a medical procedure is necessary and as a “side effect” the pregnancy terminates it is another thing all together.

Analogous to this situation involved in giving life, is the policy of the church when death is imminent. We are not allowed a mercy killing, we are not allowed to wilfully terminate the life of any individual because they are ill or to hasten their demise. Hoever, when in pain, the church allows any patient to accept the dosage of medications which will alleviate the suffering of that patient, even though the side effect of it may cause the patient to expire.

It’s not complex, it’s not obfuscated. It is clear. Fini.

Just as in the civil/criminal code of law there are degrees. Some people kill someone in defense of their nation, some kill because they are DUI, some kill in self defense, some conspire with others to kill and some kill accidentally. The nuances DO make a difference and frankly, IMO it’s time to let it go.

Each of our churches has its own version of pastoral practice, of laws and rules. As any good rabbi will tell us, it’s all written down all right, but you do have to keep in mind the “spirit” of the law as well as its letter.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I’m surprised no one quoted from the Catholic Catechism yet. I hope that helps, Father:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84 "Certain attempts to *influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance *are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Fr Ambrose:

What I am hearing is, Catholics may in some circumstances bring about the termination of a pregnancy and end the life of the fetus provided that they act unintentionally. Is that about right?

It comes from St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7)and it’s called the doctrine of double effect. I believe he got some of this idea from Aristotle who said, “the crime is in the intention.” As long as you don’t intend the death of the child, even if its death is a result, then you aren’t acting immorally.

(A little off topic, but this is how to place a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia. By poisoning someone, you intend their death. By pulling the plug, as long as your intention isn’t their death, then you don’t act immorally. A good way to check intentions is to ask yourself “if I pull this plug, would I be happier if he got up and was fine, or if he died.” The same can be said for pregnancies where the mother and child’s life is threatened.)

 

[1ke]

Fr Ambrose:

Since I have not divided abortions into direct and indirect abortions in any of my posts the distinction is purely yours and I cannot be accused of playing word games if I do not buy into your distinction. The distinction seems to be a word game somewhat similar to the refusal to call a divorce a divorce and to term it an annulment. I find that on some moral issues the Orthodox are well able to call a spade a spade whereas Catholics favour subtle terminology which glosses over what is in fact occurring.

Fr. Ambrose, the terms “spontaneous abortion” and “direct abortion” are not Catholic terms, they are medical terms. A spontaneous abortion is also what is more commonly termed a miscarriage. In a miscarriage no one takes an action to kill the child,

A direct (also called procured) abortion is the dismemberment of the child with the direct intention of killing the child,

In the course of treatment for the mother, a miscarriage may occur. It is not intended that the child die. The intent is to save both the child and the mother.

The Catholic Church does not allowed procured abortion for any reason.

 

[kmktexas]

Medical treatments such as removal of a child from a falopian tube or removal of a diseased uterus which may contain a child are not direct abortions because the death of the child is not the purpose for which these treatments are undertaken

Joe,

This is the point on which Father Ambrose is seeking to confuse us. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally licit to remove all or part of the fallopian tube even if the embryo is removed at the same time. On the other hand, it is not morrally licit to remove just the embryo and leave the fallopian tube intact. Neither is it licit to take drugs which cause the embryo to be expelled. It isn’t the condition (ectopic pregnancy) creating a “loophole” for having an abortion as Father Ambrose would have us believe.

Neither is it a choice between saving the mother or saving the baby. To say that the mother’s life is more valuable is a teaching in some religions but not the Catholic Church’s. What the Church says is that the mother does not have to refuse medical care just because it might injure the baby or terminate the pregnancy. So if the only treatment is to remove the uterous or to receive chemotherapy, the woman can morally chose to accept the treatment.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

kmktexas:

Joe,

This is the point on which Father Ambrose is seeking to confuse us. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally licit to remove all or part of the fallopian tube even if the embryo is removed at the same time. On the other hand, it is not morrally licit to remove just the embryo and leave the fallopian tube intact. Neither is it licit to take drugs which cause the embryo to be expelled. It isn’t the condition (ectopic pregnancy) creating a “loophole” for having an abortion as Father Ambrose would have us believe.

Neither is it a choice between saving the mother or saving the baby. To say that the mother’s life is more valuable is a teaching in some religions but not the Catholic Church’s. What the Church says is that the mother does not have to refuse medical care just because it might injure the baby or terminate the pregnancy. So if the only treatment is to remove the uterous or to receive chemotherapy, the woman can morally chose to accept the treatment.

The specifics for treating an ectopic pregnancy may involve the removal in whole or in part of the fallopian tube rather than the removal of the child from the fallopian tube. I am not a physician and am not familiar with the details of this particular surgery. I do not see, however, how the principle of double effect must be applied any differently if this medical treatment may be done such that a possibly otherwise healthy fallopian tube might be saved as opposed to circumstances in which the tube must be removed. The intention and the results are exactly the same in both cases, with the exception that if the fallopian tube is saved the mother’s fertility may be preserved.

This is not to say that preservation of the mother’s fertility would be sufficient reason in itself to remove a child from the mother in this manner. If we might imagine some analogous medical condition in which a pregnancy might result in damage to a woman’s future fertility, which damage might be prevented by removing that pregancy, but which condition itself presented no serious risk of death to the mother and that child, that would not be sufficient moral reason to remove that child under circumstances likely to result in that child’s death either individually or within other organs of the mother.

On a personal note, as we do not know each other, I would consider it a great courtesy if you do not use my name in a familar manner. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[allhers]

Fr. Ambrose, look at it this way, the etopic pregnancy is definately going to end this way if nothing is done,-- the baby is going to die, --because there is not enough room in that tube for the baby to grow, and if that tube bursts, the mother will more than likely for sure die too. If the child is alive when it bursts, the child is definately going to die. I do believe that more often than not though, that the child is already dead when this normally happens (I could be wrong on that point, I’ve been wrong before.) However, … it still is not an abortion to cut a “diseased” piece of fallopian (sp?) tube out, and yes, if the baby is alive when that happens, that baby is going to die, however, that baby is going to die no matter what, got it? They are not intending to kill the baby.

What would you do, just let the mother and baby both die? That seems pretty ridiclous don’t you think?
We do not as of yet, have the technology to keep a baby that young alive yet, (that I know of) but if and when we do, we will, we won’t just let a baby die if we can keep that baby alive.

There are women who choose to forgo treatment also for their uterine cancer and both them and their baby have lived.

Our late Holy Father, John Paul II, canonized a woman recently because she choose to give LIFE to her child, she had uterine cancer, and choose to forgo treatment so as not to cause the possible death of her child. Imagine that, giving your life so that another might live, how Christ-like is that??

 

[JimG]

These are two quite different actions:

1. Insert an instrument into a fallopian tube in order to directly kill a developing embryo. That would be direct killing and is not allowed.
2. Remove a fallopian tube in which an embryo is growing.
   It is the removal of the tube which saves the mother’s life. The embryo is not killed by the physician.

The embryo is doomed in either of the above situations because it will soon burst the tube and die.

The same principle would apply to removal of a uterus; although there I believe that the situation is more morally ambiguous.

It would not be permissible to insert an instrument into the uterus and directly kill the fetus. But if the uterus is diseased–i.e. with cancer–it would be permissible according to some moral theologians to remove the uterus in its entirety. Removal of the cancerous uterus does not constitute direct killing of the fetus.

These are not word games; they are real medical distinctions.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Fr. Ambrose,

There is a difference between playing word games, and using language to express the truth more clearly.

Blatantly refusing to see the distinctions is like pretending there is no difference between rape and making love. If you can’t see and express the distinctions, then either marital love is as evil as rape, or rape is as good as marital love.

 

[maendem]

Fr Ambrose:

Why is this argument for abortion under these circumstances different to those advanced in other instances of abortion? The health of the mother requires the destruction of the fetus.

No. You are missing (or ignoring) the fourth injunction of the Principle of Double Effect under which the termination of pregnancy could be permitted: that the good effect (the preservation of the mother’s health) cannot be obtained by means of the evil effect (the death of the child).

The health of the mother does not require the destruction of the child. Rather, the treatment of the cancer will have two effects, one of which is good (health); one of which is unintended but permissible (death of child). The health is obtained through the treatment, not through the “abortion.” This is proven by the fact that a women who is not pregnant, and who undergoes a uterectomy, will be equally restored to good health.

The child’s death in the case of a pregnant woman is a secondary effect of her uterectomy. This is a crucial distinction, not a word game.

 

[2heartsaz1]

Ectopic pregnancy represents the threatened lives of both mom and child. Neither one seeks to put itself first. The ectopic pregnancy was not actively intended. Whereas a procured abortion is actively sought and induced. The intention is different in each case. By comparison, one intention, that of carrying a child to a healthy gestation and to birth is good and beautiful, while the antithesis, the evil intention of actively attacking, intentionally causing severe pain to the baby by dismembering and puncturing it.

The 5th commandment tells us not to murder the innocent. It also, in Jewish tradition, instructs us to take care of our souls and bodies and those of others. Thus, the treatment for ectopic pregnancy is to treat the inflamed fallopian tube in order to preserve life. No current treatment has been developed which will guarantee that both lives will be saved.

It is a risky choice to proceed without treatment with such preganancy and both mom and baby will certainly die when no treatment is given. To refuse to treat the problem whenever it is possible (available medical care and transportation) would be gravely sinful. Both lives would certainly be lost.

God’s will be done.
Respectfully,
D in AZ

where Dr. Schwartz will be tried for abuse and murder in our courts this year.

 

[Donna_P]

jphod:

Abortion is not allowed under any conditions in either the Catholic Church and as best as I can tell the Orthodox church. This includes Uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy. I believe this was and is being discussed in the thread on Abortion and Greek Orthhodox.

.

You are mistaken and Fr Ambrose is correct.

1. Ectopic Pregnancy - The child will NEVER survive - will NEVER get to a point where it can be born. The Baby will grow to a point where the tube will burst causing the death of both the Mother and the baby. Aborting the baby is the only way to save the mother.
2. Uterine Cancer - If the baby would die anyway, based on the virulence of the cancer, then the hysterecomy could occur which would then end the life of the child.

Both cases are very sad. But in both cases, the Church supports the abortion.

 

[Donna_P]

maendem:

No. You are missing (or ignoring) the fourth injunction of the Principle of Double Effect under which the termination of pregnancy could be permitted: that the good effect (the preservation of the mother’s health) cannot be obtained by means of the evil effect (the death of the child).

The health of the mother does not require the destruction of the child. Rather, the treatment of the cancer will have two effects, one of which is good (health); one of which is unintended but permissible (death of child). The health is obtained through the treatment, not through the “abortion.” This is proven by the fact that a women who is not pregnant, and who undergoes a uterectomy, will be equally restored to good health.

The child’s death in the case of a pregnant woman is a secondary effect of her uterectomy. This is a crucial distinction, not a word game.

YOU ARE CORRECT!! Thank you for putting it so much better than I did!!!:clapping:

 

[1ke]

Donna P:

You are mistaken and Fr Ambrose is correct.

1. Ectopic Pregnancy - The child will NEVER survive - will NEVER get to a point where it can be born. The Baby will grow to a point where the tube will burst causing the death of both the Mother and the baby. Aborting the baby is the only way to save the mother.
2. Uterine Cancer - If the baby would die anyway, based on the virulence of the cancer, then the hysterecomy could occur which would then end the life of the child.

Both cases are very sad. But in both cases, the Church supports the abortion.

Donna P-- you are 100% incorrect on both 1 and 2. It has already been explained repeatedly.

 

[maendem]

Donna P:

You are mistaken and Fr Ambrose is correct.

1. Ectopic Pregnancy - The child will NEVER survive - will NEVER get to a point where it can be born. The Baby will grow to a point where the tube will burst causing the death of both the Mother and the baby. Aborting the baby is the only way to save the mother.
2. Uterine Cancer - If the baby would die anyway, based on the virulence of the cancer, then the hysterecomy could occur which would then end the life of the child.

Both cases are very sad. But in both cases, the Church supports the abortion.

Donna - I think the confusion is over the term “abortion.” The Church NEVER supports abortion, insofar as abortion means directly and intentionally taking the life of an unborn child.

The Church condones medical procedures that, despite one’s intentions to the contrary, will also bring about the death of the fetus in addition to curing or healing. It condones such actions under the Principle of Double Effect, which seeks to address how we can morally take a certain action that we know will produce both an evil and a good effect.

All four of these conditions must be fulfilled for such an action to be permissible:

1. The action itself must be morally neutral, or good (a hysterectomy clearly fulfills this condition. Since there are numerous ways to treat an ectopic pregnancy, a consistent Catholic moralist would reject options such as salpingostomy (direct removal of the embryo) while considering alternatives such as salpigectomy–removal of all or part of the fallopian tube. The former is direct, intentional abortion, aimed at the fetus (does not fulfill #1); the latter is a surgical procedure (morally neutral) that carries the additional effect of ending the child’s life (see #4).
2. The evil effect (death of child) must only be tolerated, not intended. Even if you know it’s going to happen, you can’t will it to happen.
3. There must be an equally grave reason for permitting the evil effect to occur. In this case, it is a life for a life–the mother’s versus the childs.
4. The good effect cannot be obtained through the evil effect.
   In a hysterectomy, good health does not depend on killing the child. It depends on removing the uterus. If the uterus happens to belong to a pregant woman, the child will tragically die, but that is not a requirement for a hysterectomy to be successful (consider a hysterectomy on a woman who is not pregnant–it will be equally effective). A salpingostomy, in contrast, does more than have as a side-effect the death of the fetus: it is, explicity, the death of the fetus; it IS removal of the embryo, that’s it’s whole purpose, not a side effect. In contrast to that, removal of the fallopian tube, or part of it, does not depend on the presence of a fetus or the baby’s concommitant death. The death is a side-effect, unwilled and unintended.

 

[iwonder]

Fr Ambrose:

Why is this argument for abortion under these circumstances different to those advanced in other instances of abortion? The health of the mother requires the destruction of the fetus.

 

[Summer_Girl]

Semper Fi:

As you quoted already, it it “almost” all birth control pills. Some birth control pills can be used for hormonal treatments. if the drug is prescribed for something other than preventing pregnancy, then there would have been no sin commited and hence no need for an excommunication to take place. The Church is steadfastly against any and all firms of contraception. I suggest you take a look at Theology of the Body.

I think that this is a very misunderstood teaching of the church. In Humanae Vitae there is a clause that basically if contraception is being used for the health of the mother, not contraception it is licit. The problem lies in that all chemical birthcontrol (I think there is one type that can be used licitly in the case of rape only because it prevents fertilization not implantaion but I’m not positive about this) can cause an abortion. These chemical forms of birth control keep an already created human from implanting and causes them to die. How often this happens no one but God knows. Because they cause abortions chemical forms of birth control and IUD’s do not fall under this clause in Humanae Vitae, because they switch the topic from contraception to abortion. Contraception is allowed for the health of the mother. Abortion is not except under the most extreame cases like those being discussed here.
I think this is very sad because a great number of Catholic women are taking birth control thinking it is ok because many priests have told them it is ok because they are taking them for a medical reason, not contraception. These same good Catholic women are unknowingly letting their children die. Having been one of these women, I can tell you that even if you are not found culpable, the idea that you unintentionally killed one of your own beloved children is a great grief that can be prevented if more priests are willing to understand and speak out against this evil.