Abortion and saving a woman's life

[yablabo]

Thanks for all of your comments.

What happens such as in the case with Michelle Duggar? She had precIampsia and delivered a 25 week old Jose if the child she is carrying is younger than that? The age of viability is only 24 weeks. Miracles happen for those who are born at younger than that but they are considered miracles for a reason. Earlier the child is born, the less chances it has of surviving. My question is: when does the mother’s survival become the priority? I know the church teaches somewhere that abortion is wrong but if the decision between the mother’s life and the child’s in most circumstances, the mother’s life has priority. The child’s death becomes a cause but not an aim. For example with precIampsia, the only way to save Michelle was to deliver Jose at 25 weeks. Jose was barely above the age of viability.

Does anyone know where inside the countless documents and church authors this information can be found?

To my knowledge, there is no written authoritative teaching on the matter. The principle of double effect is “traditionally” applied in cases like these.

Every human person has an equal dignity, so in that respect, neither life has “priority,” both are of equal worth. Beyond that, medical diagnosis is only given in terms of probability, so, in the case of preeclampsia, it is the mother’s prerogative either to “wait things out” or explore other moral options.

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas lays out the principle of double effect:

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

The example that St. Thomas uses to demonstrate the principle of double effect is hardly the same as pre-natal issues bringing to the surface the possibility of treatment which will kill the unborn child, since the child is not an unjust aggressor. However, applying the bare principle, one can see that if (1) the end of the direct action is good (the mother’s health) or neutral, (2) the intention is toward the good effect and not any evil effect (such as the child’s death), (3) the good effect does not follow from the evil effect but rather precedes it or occurs simultaneously, and ultimately (4) under grave circumstance, the good effect must outweigh the evil effect combined with the diligence of the agent/actor bound toward minimizing the evil insofar as possible.

I believe with the application of the principle of double effect to the case of a pregnant woman with preeclampsia, pre-mature delivery of the child is one of the moral options, whereas direct abortion never is. Direct abortion always fails as a morally good or neutral intended action since what one intends by a direct abortion is an evil action: the death of the child (aka murder) with undue risk to the life and future reproductive health of the mother, whereas in a pre-mature delivery the intention is toward the life of the child and mother simultaneously (eventhough at some point of pre-maturity the child is not naturally viable outside of the womb the intention is not that the child die, but be given a chance to live; the child still can be treated as human, made as comfortable as possible, baptized, and cherished until it passes).

– Nicole

 

[vera_dicere]

So it’s okay for me to die then? Okay, I’ll just never have sex again. That way I never risk conception and dying from labor complications.

Despite what the pro-aborts say, there is actually NO condition that requires the death of the foetus to save the mother. The conditions that are life threatening can be allievated if the child is delivered, alive. And the things like pulmonary hypertension, eclampsia, et cetera, the mother can survive till viability.

However, ectopic pregnancy is a different kettle of fish as the intention of removal of affected tube is not to kill the child.

So yeah, you can have all the sex you want - as long as its with your husband of course, and you don’t have to kill those babies because some poorly educated pro-abort tells you that x y z condition will kill you if you don’t nail the little blighter first.

 

[TradionalWay]

So it’s okay for me to die then? Okay, I’ll just never have sex again. That way I never risk conception and dying from labor complications.

As long as your not having a abortion

 

[Barbkw]

To my knowledge, there is no written authoritative teaching on the matter. The principle of double effect is “traditionally” applied in cases like these.
– Nicole

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?p…7=80&ncs1277=3

BOSTON, MA— The National Catholic Bioethics Center

Early induction of labor for chorioamnionitis, **preeclampsia, **and H.E.L.L.P. syndrome, for example, can be morally licit under the conditions just described because it directly cures a pathology by evacuating the infected membranes in the case of chorioamnionitis, or the diseased placenta in the other cases, and cannot be safely postponed.

However, early induction of an anencephalic child when there is no serious pathology of the mother which is being directly treated is not morally licit, emotional distress notwithstanding.

Early induction of labor before term (37 weeks) to relieve emotional distress hastens the death of the child as a means of achieving this presumed good effect and unjustifiably deprives the child of the good of gestation.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=482&storyid1277=80&ncs1277=3

BOSTON, MA— The National Catholic Bioethics Center

Early induction of labor for chorioamnionitis, preeclampsia, and H.E.L.L.P. syndrome, for example, **can be morally licit **under the conditions just described because it directly cures a pathology by evacuating the infected membranes in the case of chorioamnionitis, or the diseased placenta in the other cases, and cannot be safely postponed.

Thank you for finding this, Barb. For the unfortunante Catholic women and men coping with such a situation this can be be a relief.

 

[HelenRose]

Yeah, but with the chances of dying any other way, God’s church isn’t going to tell me to go drop dead.

Hypothically: As a mother you are in a car accident with your child. You could easily be saved by prying equipment used to pry open a car. However, the child is in the way and could be killed if you were saved. Or, your child would be saved by that same equipment but you are in the child’s way and you could be killed if your child was saved first. What decision would you make in this case? Would you risk death for the life of your child or would you have your child risk her life for you?

The Catholic Church teaches that an unborn child has the same intrinsic worth as a child that has been born. The choices of a mother remain the same as situation described. Does a mother risk her life for her child? Or: Does she destroy the child’s life for her own?

 

[peace2u2]

Does anyone know where inside the Catechism or other Catholic documents where it explains what happens when a second trimester pregnant woman develops a life threatening disease and doctors want to remove the child to save her life? If she is under 24 weeks pregnant, it would be considered abortion after preterm labour. I know the Catholic church is very specific when it comes to saving the unborn but it is also very gray and compassionate the mother’s life is also at risk. I’m looking for specific websites to which I can refer to.

Thanks for all your help.
SG

melissaohden.com/

lifenews.com/2012/04/26/abortion-survivor-meets-nurse-who-saved-her-life/

saintgianna.org/

 

[Newbie2]

Another permissible scenario would be the removal of a cancerous uterus. The intent is not the killing of the unborn child, but the removal of a diseased organ.

This is called the principle of double effect. To simplify, it is the idea that while trying to do something good or neutral, and something bad happens, the act is still justified. In this case, while trying to save someone’s life (good), the baby is killed in the process (bad). This is different than an abortion because the intent was not to kill the baby and every reasonable precaution is taken to save the baby’s life. Thomas Aquinas is the one who originally pondered this tricky theological concept so I’ll leave a more thorough explanation to him.

I would add that the principle of double effect holds for actions where there is a forseeable bad second effect, not intended, but nonetheless “certain”. One of the best examples is the uterus with cancer; when it is removed, the unborn baby will most certainly die (assuming that it is not near term).

 

[THP]

Despite what the pro-aborts say, there is actually NO condition that requires the death of the foetus to save the mother. The conditions that are life threatening can be allievated if the child is delivered, alive. And the things like pulmonary hypertension, eclampsia, et cetera, the mother can survive till viability.

However, ectopic pregnancy is a different kettle of fish as the intention of removal of affected tube is not to kill the child.

So yeah, you can have all the sex you want - as long as its with your husband of course, and you don’t have to kill those babies because some poorly educated pro-abort tells you that x y z condition will kill you if you don’t nail the little blighter first.

I disagree. What about HELLP syndrome or acute fatty liver of pregnancy at 19 or 20 weeks (admittedly incredibly rare). The only treatment for either of these is delivery and if it develops that early and the mom dies the baby will obviously die, that doesn’t seem like a good decision to me. I challenge anyone here to look that mom in the eye and tell her she is going to die because it would be wrong to deliver her baby pre-viable. I certainly couldn’t do it.

In an ectopic pregnancy, of course the reason to remove the tube is to kill the pregnancy (thereby saving the mother’s life). It’s really a ridiculous technicality to say that giving methotrexate or doing a salpingostomy (which are both better because they save the tube) is in any way morally different than a salpingectomy. The point of all 3 of them is to end the growing pregnancy in the tube before it ruptures and the mom bleeds to death.

As a side note, what is the Church’s stance on terminating a molar pregnancy?

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Abortion is abortion and it is intrinsically evil. No abortion is permitted even to spare the life of the mother.

A surgery that could put the life of the fetus at risk in order to save the life of the mother is not automatically considered intrinsically evil.

For a reference you could do a Google search for documents associated with the JohnPaul II institute. I am sure that that it is the easiest way to find more details.

If its an ectopic pregnancy she may get her tube removed. It is not considered abortion.

 

[thistle]

Yeah, but with the chances of dying any other way, God’s church isn’t going to tell me to go drop dead.

So you are saying that if your life is in danger while you are pregnant you will tell the doctor to save you and murder your baby?

 

[underacloud]

In an ectopic pregnancy, of course the reason to remove the tube is to kill the pregnancy (thereby saving the mother’s life). It’s really a ridiculous technicality to say that giving methotrexate or doing a salpingostomy (which are both better because they save the tube) is in any way morally different than a salpingectomy. The point of all 3 of them is to end the growing pregnancy in the tube before it ruptures and the mom bleeds to death.

The reason is not to kill the pregnancy, but to prevent the damaged tube from endangering the mother’s life. The unfortunate outcome (the second, unintended effect) of this is the death of the child. This is a well established example of the principle of double effect.

It is not a mere technically, although it may seem that way. It is an important moral premise/principle, which can be stated a number of ways, such as…

• the ends do not justify the means.
• we may not do evil that good may come of it.

If we begin to accept that people can act immorally because their intentions and ends are good, we open a can of worms that would undermine notions of sin and allow all manner of evil in the name of some good (however and whoever decides what it is).

As a side note, what is the Church’s stance on terminating a molar pregnancy?

A molar pregnancy is considered as any other form of miscarriage. There is either no fetus or a deceased fetus. In fact, if untreated molar pregancy is quite dangerous so I believe uterine evacuation is standard.

Do you mean what is the stance if a molar pregancy occurs concurrently with a viable fetus? In that case, it’s a lot harder, medically and morally.

 

[HelenRose]

As Catholics must show forth God’s love and justice with compassion. Abortion is an evil but we are dealing with people whose lives are precious to God. Let us not insult one another. Pro-abort and Anti-abortion are insulting expressions. They are intended to inflict wounds.

To carry our message we must not use those terms. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: we all know what these mean and they are quite acceptable terms. We do not need to insult one another.

 

[underacloud]

As Catholics must show forth God’s love and justice with compassion. Abortion is an evil but we are dealing with people whose lives are precious to God. Let us not insult one another. Pro-abort and Anti-abortion are insulting expressions. They are intended to inflict wounds.

To carry our message we must not use those terms. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: we all know what these mean and they are quite acceptable terms. We do not need to insult one another.

What is insulting about “anti-abortion”? It is a semantically correct and unambiguous term. Any offense taken is hardly the problem of using these particular words, but if they are offended by the content of the message, very well. Pro-life is a nice term that frames the subject in a more affirming manner and is appropriate to use too, but not as a means of “softening” the message.

Pro-choice is a vague term that has become a polite euphemism for pro-abortion. It is an attempt to obfuscate the truth. That’s the term that shouldn’t be used.

 

[THP]

The reason is not to kill the pregnancy, but to prevent the damaged tube from endangering the mother’s life. The unfortunate outcome (the second, unintended effect) of this is the death of the child. This is a well established example of the principle of double effect.

It is not a mere technically, although it may seem that way. It is an important moral premise/principle, which can be stated a number of ways, such as…
.

It absolutely is to kill the pregnancy. If there were no pregnancy, there would be no reason to remove the tube. The only reason you are removing the tube is because of the pregnancy.

In the case of tube removal versus methotrexate, it seems to me that not only is the end worse, the means are worse as well (surgery and a tube removal).

 

[HelenRose]

What is insulting about “anti-abortion”? It is a semantically correct and unambiguous term. Any offense taken is hardly the problem of using these particular words, but if they are offended by the content of the message, very well. Pro-life is a nice term that frames the subject in a more affirming manner and is appropriate to use too, but not as a means of “softening” the message.

Pro-choice is a vague term that has become a polite euphemism for pro-abortion. It is an attempt to obfuscate the truth. That’s the term that shouldn’t be used.

We all know what pro-choice means. We all know what pro-life means. I think my problem is with terms like pro-abort. Terms like that are intended to inflict pain. Part of my dislike for all the negative terminogy stems from listening to President Obama’s crafty way of twisting and turning words. I don’t want us as Catholics to engage in that kind of word crafting and the insulting manner the left has for those of us who value human life. I hope that we can learn how to engage in this discussion with greater appreciation for our rich language.

I have stated before that the problem that the Church has with fighting pro-choice people is that they speak in “sound bites” the Church speaks in complete sentences and well thought out paragraphs. I realize that sound bites are effective but our using the tactic of sound bites brings Catholic dialog down to the same level.

 

[Et_Cetera]

So you are saying that if your life is in danger while you are pregnant you will tell the doctor to save you and murder your baby?

Murder would imply malicious intent. She would be saving herself, and the fetal death would be a result of the medical treatment. This is called the double effect, and Catholicism accepts the resulting fetal death if the goal is to save the mother’s life.

And if the the mother and fetus are supposed to be equal, why is everyone here looking to put the fetal welfare above that of the mother? It seems like you’re saying the unborn takes precedence over the mother. Remember that the mother’s death would cause a lot of pain to her family and friends, not to mention that it would deprive her of all of the enjoyable aspects of life. A mother is not an inanimate carrier for a child.

I don’t think that a woman should be looked down upon for saving herself. If women are expected to die in pregnancy complications, then you could make the leap to say that for women every sexual encounter is like Russian roulette.

 

[Et_Cetera]

It absolutely is to kill the pregnancy. If there were no pregnancy, there would be no reason to remove the tube. The only reason you are removing the tube is because of the pregnancy.

In the case of tube removal versus methotrexate, it seems to me that not only is the end worse, the means are worse as well (surgery and a tube removal).

But if there weren’t a medical complication with the pregnancy, the mother and doctors wouldn’t be considering the tube removal.

 

[thistle]

Murder would imply malicious intent. She would be saving herself, and the fetal death would be a result of the medical treatment. This is called the double effect, and Catholicism accepts the resulting fetal death if the goal is to save the mother’s life.

And if the the mother and fetus are supposed to be equal, why is everyone here looking to put the fetal welfare above that of the mother? It seems like you’re saying the unborn takes precedence over the mother. Remember that the mother’s death would cause a lot of pain to her family and friends, not to mention that it would deprive her of all of the enjoyable aspects of life. A mother is not an inanimate carrier for a child.

I don’t think that a woman should be looked down upon for saving herself. If women are expected to die in pregnancy complications, then you could make the leap to say that for women every sexual encounter is like Russian roulette.

That’s not what the OP is about. The issue is not about trying to save the mother and the unintended consequence is the death of the baby. The issue is about the direct killing of the baby in order to save the mother. That is forbidden.

 

[Et_Cetera]

That’s not what the OP is about. The issue is not about trying to save the mother and the unintended consequence is the death of the baby. The issue is about the direct killing of the baby in order to save the mother. That is forbidden.

This could be the same thing depending on wording/point of view.