Abortion: extreme cases (life and health of the mother)

[flyingfish]

I ask you to assume that the scenarios are true, please don’t make arguments about how such a scenario is unlikely, or how most abortions are not performed for this reason.

I am asking you to assume they are true for the purpose of this poll.

Here are the 2 scenarios:

Scenario 1. A woman wants to have a child, she gets pregnant. Later on she develops severe complications (maybe a heart condition is discovered), and she is told that if she continues with the pregnancy she will likely die. Having an abortion is the only way to save her life.

Scenario 2. A woman wants to have a child, gets pregnant. Later she develops severe complications and is told that if she continues with the pregnancy she will suffer serious health consequences (like the Polish woman who lost her eyesight), but will remain alive. Having an abortion is the only way to prevent this.

Do you personally think that it would be moral for her to have the abortion (I’m asking what you think, not what the Church teaches).

 

[vera_dicere]

I know you don’t want people picking apart your scenarios because doing so would illicit the response you’re after, which is either to make Pro-Lifers look like women hating savages or hypocrits.

In case 1. How far into her pregnancy was this heart condition discovered? Because chances are, being 10 weeks or even 18 weeks pregnant isn’t going to exacerbate a serious heart condition as the pregnancy isn’t far enough along to put significant cardiac strain on the woman. However, to be pedantic, and perhaps a bit cheeky, abortion is simply the ending of a pregnancy, it doesn’t mention the fate of the foetus. All pregnancies “abort” themselves after nine months, all things going well.

Therefore, in this situation I say give the woman complete medical care until say 25 weeks or whatever stage viability of the foetus is established or can be maintained. Therefore, the woman’s pregnancy is “aborted” without the destruction of the child.

As for case 2. The same applies.

Pro-aborts have spun this little web of medical misinformation that dictates that killing the child is the only way to save the mother, it pits the mother against the child in a battle that people dont want to get into for fear of looking like a monster or a hypocrit.

You can save both! There is no disease process which requires as a cure the killing of the foetus. Removing the foetus, yes, but you can remove the foetus ALIVE. (Bar ectopic pregnancy but man is that a different kettle of fish)

Frankly, when I see scenarios like this, it really makes me wonder if the pro-abortion movement is about saving women’s lives and choices, or if they just like to kill something human. Its kinda sick in a way.

 

[kage_ar]

What part of “never” is unclear?

A direct abortion is never moral.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

When you ask for my opinion, rather than the teachings of the Church, what are you up to? Are you trying to make Protestants out of us? Sorry. You already have a thousand quarreling sects just because you have no central authority on the teaching of the truth.

I’m not going to break from the teachings of the Catholic Church to start yet another sect. I’m not a cafeteria christian.

 

[flyingfish]

When you ask for my opinion, rather than the teachings of the Church, what are you up to? Are you trying to make Protestants out of us? Sorry. You already have a thousand quarreling sects just because you have no central authority on the teaching of the truth.

I am just curious what you personally believe. It is possible to be a faithful Catholic even if your personal beliefs differ, it just means that you would live according to Church’s teachings even if you personally disagree.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Abortion is unacceptable in any scenario.

Look at an Italian doctor who developed a fibroma on her uterus and was told she could die if she went through with her pregnancy. She went through with the pregnancy knowing full well an abortion would save her own life. The child lived, the mother died - but the mother’s heavenly reward is surely great. And now she is a saint. Her story is a lesson to us all about placing our lives fully in God’s hands - and choosing death before sin.

***“The doctor should not meddle. The right of the child is equal to the right of the mother’s life. The doctor can’t decide; it is a sin to kill in the womb.”

“If you must choose between me and the baby, no hesitation; choose – and I demand it – the baby. Save her!”***

~Saint Gianna Beretta Molla :angel1:

 

[vera_dicere]

I am just curious what you personally believe. It is possible to be a faithful Catholic even if your personal beliefs differ, it just means that you would live according to Church’s teachings even if you personally disagree.

There’s what, 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. Stands to reason there’s going to be people who claim to be faithful and yet have differing opinions.

Just look at those individuals over at “catholics” for a free choice.

 

[flyingfish]

There’s what, 1.1 billion Catholics in the world. Stands to reason there’s going to be people who claim to be faithful and yet have differing opinions.

Just look at those individuals over at “catholics” for a free choice.

Right, but it’s one thing to have different opinions and act on them, and another to have different opinions but still live according to the Church’s teachings. Take birth control, I remember a poster on this forum saying that she doesn’t agree with the Church on birth control but she still doesn’t use it because she is obedient to the Church. This is what I’m talking about.

 

[ljubim]

There’s only two congenital heart diseases with a significant risk of maternal death.

And it’s still safer, due to the risks of abortion, to carry the baby until preemie age and have a c-section.

Now how is this a religion issue again? It sounds more like statistics and human rights to me.

PS: Killing an innocent in any case is wrong. Say you have the last food on earth. Do I kill you to live another week? We all die in the end, yet our vain modern selves want to play God and live forever. And we’ll even contract kill our own flesh and blood when there’s a two-point-five percent we’ll die. May God have mercy on our souls, before we complete our mutation into a modern-day Sodom and Gommorah.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Having an abortion is the only way to save her life.

This is a false dichotomy. It’s like saying “shop at wal-mart or start a nuclear war”. There is always the option of early delivery.

 

[Rence]

Flyingfish, I really don’t understand your persistence in this line of questioning. You always come up with these over the top senarios and claim that there is only two ways to deal with it, when in fact there are more. There is NO reason whatsoever for a woman to have an abortion in either of your hypothetical senario unless they simply don’t want to have the child. That makes your poll biased. We all know you are blatantly pro-abortion. But you are not going to prove your point with these exaggerated cases. I recommend you join a debate club at school and learn how to debate.

if you want a fair vote, you need to include options that include Vera Dicere’s explanation pertaining to both of your hypothetical senarios, because they are REALISTIC options available. The choices you are providing with regards to your senarios don’t provide the whole picture. It only tunnels in on the fact that you are so blatantly pro-abortion that you’re not even acknowledging that there are a few options for these hypothetical women. So I don’t see how anyone could have voted for any of the choices without the inclusion of more options, specifically options included on Vera Dicere’s REALISTIC answers to your senarios.

You say that you don’t want your senarios picked apart, but that’s only because you want to lead the poll in the direction of your choice. Why bother polling? If you truly want a realistic poll, you’ll add more options so that everyone can be included and vote truly without being lead.

I know you don’t want people picking apart your scenarios because doing so would illicit the response you’re after, which is either to make Pro-Lifers look like women hating savages or hypocrits.

In case 1. How far into her pregnancy was this heart condition discovered? Because chances are, being 10 weeks or even 18 weeks pregnant isn’t going to exacerbate a serious heart condition as the pregnancy isn’t far enough along to put significant cardiac strain on the woman. However, to be pedantic, and perhaps a bit cheeky, abortion is simply the ending of a pregnancy, it doesn’t mention the fate of the foetus. All pregnancies “abort” themselves after nine months, all things going well.

Therefore, in this situation I say give the woman complete medical care until say 25 weeks or whatever stage viability of the foetus is established or can be maintained. Therefore, the woman’s pregnancy is “aborted” without the destruction of the child.

As for case 2. The same applies.

Pro-aborts have spun this little web of medical misinformation that dictates that killing the child is the only way to save the mother, it pits the mother against the child in a battle that people dont want to get into for fear of looking like a monster or a hypocrit.

You can save both! There is no disease process which requires as a cure the killing of the foetus. Removing the foetus, yes, but you can remove the foetus ALIVE. (Bar ectopic pregnancy but man is that a different kettle of fish)

Frankly, when I see scenarios like this, it really makes me wonder if the pro-abortion movement is about saving women’s lives and choices, or if they just like to kill something human. Its kinda sick in a way.

 

[Silyosha]

Killing a baby is never moral.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The infallible teaching of the Church is that direct abortion is always gravely immoral, regardless of whether the death of the prenatal is intended as an end or only as a means to an end.

“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 62

If the mother’s life is in danger, and the prenatal is killed for the purpose of saving the mother’s life, this is still direct abortion and still gravely immoral. The use of abortion as a means to a good end does not justify the act. Abortion is intrinsically evil, and intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, even when used as a means to a good end.

Indirect abortion is sometimes moral, since it does not have the death of the prenatal as its moral object. Indirect abortion occurs, for example, when a woman has cancer and the prenatal is in the early stages of development. If she cannot wait until the prenatal is viable, and can be delivered, before starting cancer treatments – because then the cancer would kill them both – then she can receive treatment for the cancer, which has the good moral object of healing her. The death of the prenatal is then an unintended consequence.

 

[Corki]

What part of “never” is unclear?

A direct abortion is never moral.

 

[surritter]

Why is it that if you ask ANY mother to jump in front of a bus to save her two-day-old baby, she would instantly do it, but if you ask a mother to risk her life before the birth, it’s suddenly a head-scratching moment that warrants polls?


Those who favor “choice” when the mother’s health is jeopardized should really ask themselves why it’s so different to defend a baby before the birth as it is after the birth! And if they say “well, because a baby who’s unborn is still in development and isn’t really assured of making it to birth anyway,” then they still have to deal with the problem of directly taking an innocent life, even if for a good reason.

 

[rayne89]

Murdering children is murdering children. A direct abortion is always murder and always immoral. I have such a heart condition by the way and while I am certainly in no hurry to die I wouldn’t kill my own child to save my life. What an abhorrent thought. Such an idea is the antithesis of motherhood. Mothers are the nurturers and protectors of their children.

 

[Kadersnana]

I have a daughter that is almost 22. When she was 20 she became pregnant and was told to abort due to some major health problems. She refused. Here is the rest of the story.

My daughter S has Neurofibromatosis (NF), which cause the growth of tumors. She has a large mass that takes up approximately 65% of her abdominal cavity. Part of this mass wraps around part of the iliac artery. It is inoperable because of the possibility of her bleeding to death during surgery. It has eroded part of her spine and most of her hip bone on one side. The tumor is basically at this point supporting that part of her body and she doesn’t have enough bone left in her hip to repair if it ever breaks. She was also told that she had a bicornuated uterus (come to find out there is only a slight dip in it). That’s the simplified part of it. NF is genetic and she has a 50/50 chance of passing it on.

The first doctor she went to told her repeatedly to abort that the baby would be mentally retarded because it wouldn’t have enough room to grow, that the baby had a high chance of having NF, that there would be so much pressure on her vessels and heart because of a growing baby and the extra blood volume we produce during pregnancy, and on and on she went. It seemed that the thing she tried to stress was the possibility of NF. She told her “You don’t want your baby to go through what you have gone through do you?” S and I have never thought it made us less of a person having it.

S told her I won’t murder my baby. I will wait and see what happens. I will never know if I don’t try and this doctor tried to convince her it was a matter of philosophy, my brave girl said no it’s murder. The doctor got pretty ticked and said I will recommend you to a high risk pregnancy doctor and walked out.

And tonight I am babysitting my beautiful wonderful grandson that will be one year old in three days. I am starting to cry to think what life would be like if he wasn’t here. He is bright and full of energy, he walked at 9 months, is NF free, has the sweetest smile and is one of the best blessing we have ever had in our lives.

J was born by c-section two weeks exactly before he was due, because he didn’t turn in time and was feet first. He weigh 5lbs 8.5 oz. He was born on his cousins due date. His cousin K was born 15 hours later and weighed 8 lbs 5.8 oz. Today J is bigger than his cousin in both height and weight.

I am grateful that my daughter trusted God. Both her and baby are doing quite well and if all goes right she and my other daughter will be starting nursing school this fall.

Thank you for taking time to read my story. Be blessed and love the little ones in your life they are truly treasures from God. Angela

 

[Art321]

I have a daughter that is almost 22. When she was 20 she became pregnant and was told to abort due to some major health problems. She refused. Here is the rest of the story.

My daughter S has Neurofibromatosis (NF), which cause the growth of tumors. She has a large mass that takes up approximately 65% of her abdominal cavity. Part of this mass wraps around part of the iliac artery. It is inoperable because of the possibility of her bleeding to death during surgery. It has eroded part of her spine and most of her hip bone on one side. The tumor is basically at this point supporting that part of her body and she doesn’t have enough bone left in her hip to repair if it ever breaks. She was also told that she had a bicornuated uterus (come to find out there is only a slight dip in it). That’s the simplified part of it. NF is genetic and she has a 50/50 chance of passing it on.

The first doctor she went to told her repeatedly to abort that the baby would be mentally retarded because it wouldn’t have enough room to grow, that the baby had a high chance of having NF, that there would be so much pressure on her vessels and heart because of a growing baby and the extra blood volume we produce during pregnancy, and on and on she went. It seemed that the thing she tried to stress was the possibility of NF. She told her “You don’t want your baby to go through what you have gone through do you?” S and I have never thought it made us less of a person having it.

S told her I won’t murder my baby. I will wait and see what happens. I will never know if I don’t try and this doctor tried to convince her it was a matter of philosophy, my brave girl said no it’s murder. The doctor got pretty ticked and said I will recommend you to a high risk pregnancy doctor and walked out.

And tonight I am babysitting my beautiful wonderful grandson that will be one year old in three days. I am starting to cry to think what life would be like if he wasn’t here. He is bright and full of energy, he walked at 9 months, is NF free, has the sweetest smile and is one of the best blessing we have ever had in our lives.

J was born by c-section two weeks exactly before he was due, because he didn’t turn in time and was feet first. He weigh 5lbs 8.5 oz. He was born on his cousins due date. His cousin K was born 15 hours later and weighed 8 lbs 5.8 oz. Today J is bigger than his cousin in both height and weight.

I am grateful that my daughter trusted God. Both her and baby are doing quite well and if all goes right she and my other daughter will be starting nursing school this fall.

Thank you for taking time to read my story. Be blessed and love the little ones in your life they are truly treasures from God. Angela

I just have to say that this is a BEAUTIFUL story!!! Thank you so much for sharing and God bless,

Art321

 

[Ruthie_again]

Thank you for that, Angela. (Scuse me while I sniffle…)

I’ve also read the story of a girl who was pregnant as the result of rape. She had and raised her baby; she knew it was an innocent, and deserving of love. She didn’t let the circumstances of the conception get in her way.

FlyingFish, you can’t really disagree with an infallible teaching and be a faithful Catholic. That is, if you think you’re right and the Church is wrong, then you are not faithful, whether you obey the “rules” or not.

However, if you can drag yourself to the point where you believe that your opinion is wrong because the Church is right, you’re on your way. Then, when you research why the Church teaches what she does, your opinion will change and align with Tradition.

At least, that’s how it worked for me.

God bless you,

Ruthie
Tiber Swim Team '06

 

[flyingfish]

Why is it that if you ask ANY mother to jump in front of a bus to save her two-day-old baby, she would instantly do it, but if you ask a mother to risk her life before the birth, it’s suddenly a head-scratching moment that warrants polls?

I think risking your life and giving your life are different things. More people would be willing to take lower risks than higher risks, I would be surprised if every parent out there would die for their baby. Especialy parents who have other living children to take care of. I would think that most parents with other children would rather let the baby die than leave the rest of their children on their own.

I actually read quite a few accounts of very poor women in South America who end up leaving their born children to die when they see that there will not be enough food for everyone. They will cut their losses and only save some.