Abortion Ethical Struggles

  • Thread starter Thread starter TruthSeeker319
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TruthSeeker319

Guest
Hello all,

I am pro-life (baby is person, avoid abortion at all costs, etc), but I am having trouble answering a question for myself: In the case where a woman will die without an abortion is it morally permissible to abort the child?

As a bit of an intuition pump, I’ve likening it to two people on a cliff face. Person A is holding onto the cliff with one hand and with their other is holding onto person B who is unconscious (I know unborn can feel pain, etc, but they cannot speak to give consent to be “dropped”). If person A does not let go of person B, then they will both die. If person A does let go, then he can pull himself to safety. Is it morally permissible for person A to let go of person B? Obviously, there will be regrets and the cliff should be avoided at all costs, but let’s face it: life is messy.
My intuition says that person A is permitted to let go of person B in this situation.
However, this seems to clash with my pro-life views.

Could someone please help me sort this out? I’m not just looking for what the Church says, but also why they say that. I am looking for the reasoning and the argument. This is a question that was posed to me by a pro-choice friend that I honestly could not answer.
 
Same here…

But let me try… (to be honest, letting an unconscious person die is pretty horrible, and even if the person is awake, the person will never consent to death imo and if person B was a young unconscious kid 😦 BUT i get that it’s not the point and I’m getting carried away lol)

Person A tries to climb back up, but if the person does so, there’s a high chance person B falls, it’s ethical for Person A to do so

(That means, if the woman were to have an operation, and there is a risk of the baby dying, it’s permissible…? Right??) because it’s not a direct abortion…

Jeez, this issue is so difficult and I honestly pity women in a situation like this 😦 I am leaning towards your POV, but yes it’s inconsistent with the church i think

Edit: just read up a little. It’s okay if the woman has the diseased tissue of the uterus removed to save her life, even though that will cause the baby to die (indirect)

Not okay for the woman to have the abortion. (Basically the procedure has to be geared towards saving the mom’s life even tho the baby will die, not directly taking away the baby’s life. Does that make sense? Not sure if I phrased it properly
 
In 2016, there is almost never a reason for a mother to abort her child to save her life.

In fact, this type of abortion accounts for less than 1% of abortions performed in the US.

Elective abortions are done, in almost 60% of cases, because it is inconvenient. It’s a sad reality.
 
Lea101 said:
It’s okay if the woman has the diseased tissue of the uterus removed to save her life, even though that will cause the baby to die (indirect)

Not okay for the woman to have the abortion. (Basically the procedure has to be geared towards saving the mom’s life even tho the baby will die, not directly taking away the baby’s life. Does that make sense? Not sure if I phrased it properly
Click to expand...
That is correct.

Example 1:
Direct action= aborting the child
Indirect result= saving the mother

Example 2:
Direct action=Saving the mother (i.e. medication, removal of uterus, etc)
Indirect result= aborting the child

The outcome is the same, but the actions and intentions are different. In example 1 the intention is to kill the child in order to save the mother. In example 2 the intention is to save the mother which results in the unintended result of the death of the child.
 
The answers above are correct. It is about treating both lives equally. Ripping a foetus limb from limb (D&E abortion) or injecting it to stop its heart and inducing labour are murder, pure and simple.

Ectopic pregnancy is a perfect example of where the mother will die if the pregnancy continues. Removal of the portion of the fallopian tube that contains the amniotic sac is permissible; the intent is to remove that which will kill the woman, unfortunately we have no way of incubating such a small baby. Also waiting until a pregnancy is viable and inducing early delivery might be a good solution to some diseases. If the baby dies of some complication, at least its dignity was respected and it was given a chance at life.
 
It’s a question that comes up a lot.

It seems to be extraordinarily rare that a mother would die without an abortion. My guess is that, in cases where it happens that a mother does die, the cause is probably related to inadequate or improper care. In other words, with appropriate care, there would not be life-threatening pregnancies.

That being said, I was personally familiar with a woman who *did *die. I don’t know for sure if pregnancy was a contributing factor or not. I do know that her doctor warned her that a pregnancy would be life threatening because she had a serious heart condition and was taking very sensitive medications. She wanted another baby. She got pregnant and took her chances. She died. It was tragic and traumatic.

Would better care have saved her? She did, after all, choose to get pregnant knowing the risks.
 
Thank you everyone, I guess I already held the belief and just didn’t apply the unintended abortion argument.
 
  • Historical note: Back in the early 60’s [before abortion had any respectability…], the Catholic opinion was the same as it is today - one life cannot be directly taken to save another…some Protestant theologians argued that the unborn child should be saved, even at the cost of the mother’s life, because she had already had ‘a chance to live’, and the unborn child deserved the same…
 
TruthSeeker319 said:
My intuition says that person A is permitted to let go of person B in this situation.
However, this seems to clash with my pro-life views.

Could someone please help me sort this out? I’m not just looking for what the Church says, but also why they say that. I am looking for the reasoning and the argument. This is a question that was posed to me by a pro-choice friend that I honestly could not answer.
Click to expand...
It is a question of intent. Is Person A intending to cause the death of Person B. For example, if Person B was caught by a strong updraft, and deposited on a haystack, would Person A be relieved that Person B survived the ordeal, or upset that their goal of killing Person B was frustrated.

That is the distinction between abortion and your case. In abortion, the Person B is deliberately targeted to die. It is the intent of the procedure, not an undesired outcome.
 
boldlygo said:
  • Historical note: Back in the early 60’s [before abortion had any respectability…], the Catholic opinion was the same as it is today - one life cannot be directly taken to save another…some Protestant theologians argued that the unborn child should be saved, even at the cost of the mother’s life, because she had already had ‘a chance to live’, and the unborn child deserved the same…
Click to expand...
Correction: One “innocent” life cannot be taken (as a means) to save another. In all cases, the motivation for action must be good.
 
TruthSeeker319 said:
Hello all,

I am pro-life (baby is person, avoid abortion at all costs, etc), but I am having trouble answering a question for myself: In the case where a woman will die without an abortion is it morally permissible to abort the child?

As a bit of an intuition pump, I’ve likening it to two people on a cliff face. Person A is holding onto the cliff with one hand and with their other is holding onto person B who is unconscious (I know unborn can feel pain, etc, but they cannot speak to give consent to be “dropped”). If person A does not let go of person B, then they will both die. If person A does let go, then he can pull himself to safety. Is it morally permissible for person A to let go of person B? Obviously, there will be regrets and the cliff should be avoided at all costs, but let’s face it: life is messy.
My intuition says that person A is permitted to let go of person B in this situation.
However, this seems to clash with my pro-life views.

Could someone please help me sort this out? I’m not just looking for what the Church says, but also why they say that. I am looking for the reasoning and the argument. This is a question that was posed to me by a pro-choice friend that I honestly could not answer.
Click to expand...
Since this is hypothetical: One way to look at it is. If I were in a car accident with my baby and to rescue me would endanger my baby or to rescue my baby would endanger me, which option would I take? Which option would you take? Which option is ethical?
 
HelenRose said:
Since this is hypothetical: One way to look at it is. If I were in a car accident with my baby and to rescue me would endanger my baby or to rescue my baby would endanger me, which option would I take? Which option would you take? Which option is ethical?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a tragedy here a while ago… A car slid off a jetty into the sea. Full of people, A man swam out to them ; the door electrics had gone with the water, and the driver had got out through a broken window. He went back in to pass the baby to the rescuer. Lost his life by doing that as the car went down.

Not a question of ethics but of selfless love. Which these women who abort lack totally. All self with them.
 
Brendan said:
It is a question of intent. Is Person A intending to cause the death of Person B. For example, if Person B was caught by a strong updraft, and deposited on a haystack, would Person A be relieved that Person B survived the ordeal, or upset that their goal of killing Person B was frustrated.

That is the distinction between abortion and your case. In abortion, the Person B is deliberately targeted to die. It is the intent of the procedure, not an undesired outcome.
Click to expand...
We need mandatory strong updrafts in our public mountains. 😛

Also, that’s a really nice way to summarize it. Would that I could come up with this so easily.

I think a good way to let the ethics handle themselves, though, would be to declare the unborn legal persons and work out the details from there.
 
Rosebud77 said:
Sounds like a tragedy here a while ago… A car slid off a jetty into the sea. Full of people, A man swam out to them ; the door electrics had gone with the water, and the driver had got out through a broken window. He went back in to pass the baby to the rescuer. Lost his life by doing that as the car went down.

Not a question of ethics but of selfless love. Which these women who abort lack totally. All self with them.
Click to expand...
Tragic but a beautiful story of courage. No man has greater love than to lay down his life for a friend.
 
No innocent child growing inside the womb should have to endure the violence that is abortion. The methods of intentionally killing the “unseen” child are awful. Letting anyone die, mother or child, seems cruel. The hope is to try and save both before anything else, yet if it can’t be done, the child doesn’t have to be viciously attacked and violated. Rather, she can be gently removed from the womb, without ever having to be harmed in any way, then at least given a decent burial, with a small blessing said for her. The mother would be heartbroken, because she had truly wanted and loved that child. I’ve never known anyone that has gone through this, and can’t imagine what it would be like. It just doesn’t seem as though it would happen too often. I would think a woman who is in danger of dying from a pregnancy would just miscarry on her own.
 
My ideology changed several years ago when a woman died because it was against Ireland’s laws to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. The women in Poland just this very week made it clear to their governing body that they would not accept or support the very same law. Instead of ending up with a woman able to mother her older children, you now have children with no mother. Absolutely unreal…:eek:
 
kozlosap said:
My ideology changed several years ago when a woman died because it was against Ireland’s laws to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. The women in Poland just this very week made it clear to their governing body that they would not accept or support the very same law. Instead of ending up with a woman able to mother her older children, you now have children with no mother. Absolutely unreal…:eek:
Click to expand...
And you are entirely sure that the direct and intentional killing of the innocent child was the only available medical response?

When these modern day instances have been examined, it usually turns out the medical staff failed to understand what actions were available to them.

The Church teaches that it is wrong to seek to achieve a good result (mum lives) by doing an evil act (murdering the innocent baby). But it teaches actions directed at the mother are proper, even if they create grave risk for the child.

Our Catholic moral theology rejects the idea that the right course of action can be judged solely on the basis of consequences.
 
kozlosap;14209770**:
My ideology changed several years ago when a woman died because it was against Ireland’s laws to terminate a pregnancy for any reason
Click to expand...
. The women in Poland just this very week made it clear to their governing body that they would not accept or support the very same law. Instead of ending up with a woman able to mother her older children, you now have children with no mother. Absolutely unreal…:eek:

Assuming you are referring to the Savita case?

Please get your facts right

An immediate abortion was refused as there was still a foetal heartbeat although she as clearly miscarrying.

The death happened because medical staff failed to monitor her and so missed the infection that is what killed the lady…

Days after the miscarriage, Sepsis, Treatable.

It was medical negligence ;The jury found for death by medical misadventure.

irishtimes.com/news/health/report-identifies-multiple-failures-in-treatment-of-savita-halappanavar-1.1427332

Read the full report on the link here

cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

It was sensationalised as the poor lady was foreign national in a strange country whose ways were not acceptable,

And the low esteem the Church is held in here of course fuelled the fire.
 
Rau said:
And you are entirely sure that the direct and intentional killing of the innocent child was the only available medical response?

When these modern day instances have been examined, it usually turns out the medical staff failed to understand what actions were available to them.

The Church teaches that it is wrong to seek to achieve a good result (mum lives) by doing an evil act (murdering the innocent baby). But it teaches actions directed at the mother are proper, even if they create grave risk for the child.

Our Catholic moral theology rejects the idea that the right course of action can be judged solely on the basis of consequences.
Click to expand...
Please see the links I posted above,

It was simple negligence. As the jury found and HSE paid a huge sum in compensation for that.

I disagree with what I have bolded although the word" solely" lets you off that hook a little,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top