Abortion Exceptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eilrahc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eilrahc

Guest
I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.
 
Why can’t they still try everything possible to save both?
 
Eilrahc said:
I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.
Click to expand...
There is no such scenario that exists.
 
Aggies08 said:
Why can’t they still try everything possible to save both?
Click to expand...
The only case where this can happen is an ectopic pregnancy. But that isn’t within the next hour, and there is really no hope for the baby.
 
Eilrahc said:
I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.
Click to expand...
I do not know why people continually try to make up scenarios that are (a) unrealistic and (b) do nothing to change the fact that abortion is always wrong.

In such a case, you do all you can to save both the mother and the child, but you may not kill either of them on purpose.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The only case where this can happen is an ectopic pregnancy. But that isn’t within the next hour, and there is really no hope for the baby.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t ectopic pregnancies themselves the exception?
 
Eilrahc said:
I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.
Click to expand...
Tell us the exact situation and I bet you a true pro-life high-risk-pregnancy obstetrician will tell you why this would not be the case. Why is this child suddenly causing the death of her mother in the next hour? One can make up situations all day, the fact is willingly taking the life of an unborn child is wrong.

A mother from Tenn. came to the abortion mill in Arkansas this summer because her ob told her that **she and her baby were going to die **if she did not abort. Thankfully, prayer warriors were praying outside the clinic. The mother came down to the sidewalk to speak with them. Sidewalk helpers were able to get her an appointment with a pro-life high risk ob.

Her baby did have health issues, but the doctor told mother that she was not going to die and her baby had a chance to live. This family continued to make the long trip for the rest of the pregnancy. The ob said we were watching a miracle as the baby continued to improve. The baby was born and treated at a children’s hospital.

Mom, Dad, brother, and baby Nellie are all doing well. Can you imagine the pain this mother and father would have today if they had listened to the other doctor.
 
Razanir said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t ectopic pregnancies themselves the exception?
Click to expand...
No. One may not directly abort even a baby in an ectopic situation.

That is why the abortive drugs are not permitted, while surgery on the tube is.
 
1ke said:
No. One may not directly abort even a baby in an ectopic situation.

That is why the abortive drugs are not permitted, while surgery on the tube is.
Click to expand...
From PubMed:
"Treatment

Ectopic pregnancies [sic] is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life."

So what’s this? :confused:
 
on_the_hill said:
Ectopic pregnancies [sic] is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life."

So what’s this? :confused:
Click to expand...
It’s the principle of double effect, that’s what! 😃

Sometimes, there’s the desire to produce some good effect; however, if the only way to do that also involves a foreseen but unavoidable and unintended bad effect, there are circumstances in which it’s licit to pursue the good effect.

It’s a pretty nuanced argument, and it requires a number of conditions to be met:
  • the desired effect must be morally good (or at least morally neutral)
  • the bad effect cannot be intended
  • The bad effect cannot be the means by which the good effect is realized
  • the good effect cannot be disproportionate to the bad effect
So, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the good effect is the preservation of the mother’s life. The bad effect (the death of the baby) cannot be what is intended. One cannot abort the baby (by means of chemicals, for example) as the means by which the mother’s life is saved. (However, if one removes part of the fallopian tube, and this causes the baby to die (but the baby itself isn’t the target of the surgery), then the operation is licit.) Finally, the mother’s life isn’t a disproportionate good as compared to the bad effect of the loss of the baby’s life (if, on the other hand, the baby was killed in order to do something trivial, then the operation wouldn’t be licit).

Keep something in mind: in this analysis, one might be allowed to remove part of the fallopian tube. However, one wouldn’t be allowed to directly kill the baby and remove only the baby (leaving the tube intact); likewise, one couldn’t use abortifacient drugs in order to kill the baby.

One last thing: in this analysis, we wouldn’t call the action an abortion. The intent would be the preservation of the life of the mother, not the killing of the baby; moreover, the action taken wouldn’t be the direct killing of the baby, but an operation that saves the life of the mother.

So, in a very real way, the answer is ‘no’ – there wouldn’t be sufficient cause to say “go ahead and abort the baby”; however, there might be sufficient cause to perform an operation that would foreseeably (but unintentionally) result in the death of the baby.
 
Razanir said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t ectopic pregnancies themselves the exception?
Click to expand...
An ectopic pregnancy always ends with the death of the fetus,

You are not killing him unfortunately we don’t have a medical procedure to reimplant the embryo in the uterus, yet

May be in the future.
 
i hate when doctors go on tv saying that.

this is the main reason for death in child birth

1: brain aneurysm (you push so hard you burst a artery in the brain, same thing for men when they use the washroom when your older)

2: blood loss, laceration etc.
  1. preeclampsia or polar opposite major drop in blood pressure leading to cardiac arrest.
a ll these cannot really be controlled and happen during birth and no amount of abortions will prevent or stop those events from happening.

the reason for having a abortion is none (other then what the poster said above, a baby that happens to start growing outside the womb, the fallopian tubes or sometimes in other areas.
 
Gorgias said:
It’s the principle of double effect, that’s what! 😃

Sometimes, there’s the desire to produce some good effect; however, if the only way to do that also involves a foreseen but unavoidable and unintended bad effect, there are circumstances in which it’s licit to pursue the good effect.

It’s a pretty nuanced argument, and it requires a number of conditions to be met:
  • the desired effect must be morally good (or at least morally neutral)
  • the bad effect cannot be intended
  • The bad effect cannot be the means by which the good effect is realized
  • the good effect cannot be disproportionate to the bad effect
So, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the good effect is the preservation of the mother’s life. The bad effect (the death of the baby) cannot be what is intended. One cannot abort the baby (by means of chemicals, for example) as the means by which the mother’s life is saved. (However, if one removes part of the fallopian tube, and this causes the baby to die (but the baby itself isn’t the target of the surgery), then the operation is licit.) Finally, the mother’s life isn’t a disproportionate good as compared to the bad effect of the loss of the baby’s life (if, on the other hand, the baby was killed in order to do something trivial, then the operation wouldn’t be licit).

Keep something in mind: in this analysis, one might be allowed to remove part of the fallopian tube. However, one wouldn’t be allowed to directly kill the baby and remove only the baby (leaving the tube intact); likewise, one couldn’t use abortifacient drugs in order to kill the baby.

One last thing: in this analysis, we wouldn’t call the action an abortion. The intent would be the preservation of the life of the mother, not the killing of the baby; moreover, the action taken wouldn’t be the direct killing of the baby, but an operation that saves the life of the mother.

So, in a very real way, the answer is ‘no’ – there wouldn’t be sufficient cause to say “go ahead and abort the baby”; however, there might be sufficient cause to perform an operation that would foreseeably (but unintentionally) result in the death of the baby.
Click to expand...
this is absolutely correct. very well put.
 
Eilrahc said:
I’m completely pro-life, but I’ve been wondering. What if it’s a guarentee that the pregnant woman will die in one hour, and having the abortion is the only way to save her life? Months ago, a co-worker asked me a similar question, and I was unable to provide an answer.
Click to expand...
DIRECT abortion is never permissible, even to save the life of the mother.
 
JerryZ said:
An ectopic pregnancy always ends with the death of the fetus,

You are not killing him unfortunately we don’t have a medical procedure to reimplant the embryo in the uterus, yet

May be in the future.
Click to expand...
A doctor in another country did reimplant an embryo. I’m thinking it was in Canada, but I could be wrong. It’s the only case I’ve ever heard of, but I believe that it was successful so far.
 
on_the_hill said:
From PubMed:
"Treatment

Ectopic pregnancies [sic] is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life."

So what’s this? :confused:
Click to expand...
As they always say, take what you find on the internet with a grain of salt. Not all ectopic pregnancies are life threatening. I’ll counter with another web site. 😉

drdaiter.com/hyst_ecto/ecto4.html
Expectant management is essentially observation and monitoring without active treatment, understanding that up to 25% of ectopic pregnancies will resolve on their own
Click to expand...
An ectopic pregnancy, in and of itself, is not what triggers the need to do surgery that will harm the baby. It’s the effects of an ectopic pregnancy that does not resolve on its own that requires intervention such as surgery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top