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

[ac_claire]

You’re asking me to come up with a specific medical condition. I never went to med school, and I don’t have the time to scour medical literature to find one.

I’m saying, assume such a condition exists, what do you do? It’s not logically impossible for such a condition to exist.

But if we’re going to assume something totally imaginary, then let’s go ahead and also assume that-- no matter what-- the baby won’t have to die in order to save the mother!

It does frustrate some people’s rational thinking skills to deal with vague, unreal scenarios.
You don’t need them anyhow, you could use the (real) example of an ectopic pregnancy to illustrate whatever point you’re getting at in the OP. We were just discussing that on this other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=419173&page=4

 

[vera_dicere]

I don’t understand why people have so much trouble addressing a hypothetical scenario, and require a real life example of when this happened. Look at moral dilemmas like 2 vs 5 people on a train track, do you redirect the train. No, it’s not a realistic scenario, but it’s not a logically impossible scenario and it makes people think about fundamentals. Even if a medical condition that would mean abortion or death doesn’t currently exist, it doesn’t make the question pointless.

But hypotheticals need to be realistic, like saying would you shoot your son or your daughter and if you don’t shoot one, both will be shot by a sick twisted robber who’s making you make that choice.

The pro-abortion mindset crafts such “hypotheticals” that are not logical and not realistic. It’d be like saying a unicorn walks into your house and a magical faerie states that unless you remove your son’s brains and feed them to the zombie then your five other children will be killed by a gang of ravenous leprechauns.

 

[flyingfish]

But hypotheticals need to be realistic, like saying would you shoot your son or your daughter and if you don’t shoot one, both will be shot by a sick twisted robber who’s making you make that choice.

The pro-abortion mindset crafts such “hypotheticals” that are not logical and not realistic. It’d be like saying a unicorn walks into your house and a magical faerie states that unless you remove your son’s brains and feed them to the zombie then your five other children will be killed by a gang of ravenous leprechauns.

Leprechauns? A few posts above Rayne says that she has a heart condition such that were she to get pregnant, her heart would likely give out. That is very close to the hypothetical.

I also gave an example in the OP of a woman who actually lost her eyesight as a result of the pregnancy.

It seems like you want to deny the possibility of a situation where the woman would have to choose between abortion or her own death.

 

[Rence]

Leprechauns? A few posts above Rayne says that she has a heart condition such that were she to get pregnant, her heart would likely give out. That is very close to the hypothetical.

I also gave an example in the OP of a woman who actually lost her eyesight as a result of the pregnancy.

It seems like you want to deny the possibility of a situation where the woman would have to choose between abortion or her own death.

The fact is, you are not a doctor. I am not a doctor. We are not doctors to these women. I have 1000 questions to ask some of these women because I’m in nursing school and it interests me. But it would be inappropriate on this forum. Though, one thing I am very certain is: there is more to it than the small segments you just pointed out above.

For example: pregnancy does not cause the loss of eyesight. Pregnancy does, however, cause other physiological changes in women, some of them harmful. And they are dealt with appropriately. For example, some women get gestational diabetes. They can die from it. But an abortion is not the treatment. Some women’s bloodpressure skyrockets when pregnant. Aboriton is not a treatment.

What was the real reason behind this woman losing her eyesight? What was the real medical condition? What were her options? Methinks that if pregnancy led to her loss of eyesight, many other things could have as well. Could the loss of eyesight have been prevented by a different approach to the pregnancy? could medications have helped? Would her eyesight have been saved for sure if she had an abortion? Would medication, bedrest, or other treatments have helped?

 

[Adrienne5678]

NOOOOOO!!!

You cannot kill a human because that human puts your life in danger. If you think you can then you must think that it’s okay to kill every person with a contagious disease…

There is NEVER a right scenario to kill a human.

 

[crazzeto]

Nothing can make an inherently immoral act moral, the ends never justify the means.

 

[Supercatholic]

NOOOOOO!!!

You cannot kill a human because that human puts your life in danger. If you think you can then you must think that it’s okay to kill every person with a contagious disease…

There is NEVER a right scenario to kill a human.

You are correct, the intentional killing of another human is not allowed, but the Church does teach that if someone intends to fataly harm you, you are permitted to defend yourself, which may possibly result in their death. Unborn babes to do not fit into this category, because they never ever, never, 100% never intend fatal harm.

 

[remjsmom76]

Im not answering as a catholic just as my own person.

In scene 1: the woman could go as far as she can to make sure the child has a CHANCE at life. Then they can deliver the child therefore SAVING the mother and giving the child the possibility at life.

in scene 2…I know It might be scary to find out that you will get sick afterwards…Im one of them. I have long lasting medical problems due to my pregnancies…but never once do I regret having been pregnant. It is selfish to put yourself before your child…in my oppinion. I mean the way I see it is…if your child was out of your body and was about to be hit by a truck…would you NOT save your child because it could mangle your body, leaving you crippled or would you save your child knowing you could get hurt or killed? I think its an obvious answer…but to some it may not be. For the record…Id put my life on the line for my children…even the ones who are in my womb.

 

[mollyvrog]

if you found out you were pregnant and your whole town was against it, and you found out you could die, would you abort? Well then you just killed Jesus!

Or, if you found out your baby was going to be deaf , and blind, would you? Then you just kill Beethoven.

I was pregnant , and chose abortion, because I was scared, alone, etc. To this day I know I committed murder, it isn’t until lately I finally realized I was forgiven, that I finally could forgive myself, but it still eats at me. This took place in 1979. I since had four more children, to try and make up for the loss. When I was pregnant with my last one, 16 years ago, I was told to get an abortion, or I would die. I wouldn’t do it! I still tend to tell people I had 6 children, even though I have 5. There’s a hole there, and always will be. My blood pressure went so high I couldn’t do anything but lay on my left side for 5 months, My son and I both almost died.His heart kept stopping. I even wrote out my will. They had to do a caeserian(sp)., which also could have killed me, I had to sign a release, absolving the hospital of all responsibility. All I told them, make sure the baby lives, I went under praying that. When I came to, I cried, and still do, because God spared me and the baby. I’m now 57.

 

[betty_ann]

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.

wonderful post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BigRedpg51]

I am Catholic, and I believe that the Catholic Church teaches Truth. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for me to espouse an opinion on abortion that differs from the Truth, wouldn’t it?

 

[Christopher1956]

Just considering the simplicity of the poll questions and the answers and not getting into all the nuancing. The poll questions cut the argument to the quick. The surprise to me is how they cut.

Do 80% who follow the Catholic teachings of Christ actually believe that a woman’s health or mortality doesn’t matter on this issue? – Or is this just a measure of the bias of this particular forum?

Very curious to me.

 

[surritter]

Just considering the simplicity of the poll questions and the answers and not getting into all the nuancing. The poll questions cut the argument to the quick. The surprise to me is how they cut.

Do 80% who follow the Catholic teachings of Christ actually believe that a woman’s health or mortality doesn’t matter on this issue? – Or is this just a measure of the bias of this particular forum?

Very curious to me.

Chris, no one is saying that the woman’s health is irrelevant!
Your concern seems to be that the mother may die. We all agree that this is a very important concern. But recall that the OP’s scenarios dictate that the alternative is to abort a baby. And abortion is the CERTAIN death of a person.

So now, doesn’t it make more sense to take a chance on one life instead of the CERTAINTY of a death for the other life? Or are you implying that – given that there are two persons involved – the mother’s life is more important that the baby’s? (If yes to that last question, then you are saying that some lives are more valuable than others – ouch!)

 

[vera_dicere]

Leprechauns? A few posts above Rayne says that she has a heart condition such that were she to get pregnant, her heart would likely give out. That is very close to the hypothetical.

I also gave an example in the OP of a woman who actually lost her eyesight as a result of the pregnancy.

It seems like you want to deny the possibility of a situation where the woman would have to choose between abortion or her own death.

I’m trying to express to you, and whoever else cares, that your scenarios are trying to get answer C for question A without mentioning situation B.

Yes, there are some women who carry pre-existing medication conditions which pregnancy would exacerbate, but killing the child is not a cure. There are other ways around the situation. Like pre-term C sections. Medical interventions that don’t involve tearing a foetus’ limbs off, ripping out his guts, snapping his spine and crushing his skull.

That’s the point.

You are focussed on an answer that is what YOU want to hear. You want to hear some luke warm Pro-Lifer or uninformed Catholic get up here and say “Well, if the woman’s life is in danger, then she should abort”, which will then lead you be able to claim any myriad of situations where if one can support abortion for physical health of mother, they should logically support it for social health of mother.

Abortion is not health care. It is not a cure. Removing a pregnancy can remove the symptoms. But removing a pregnancy can be done without killing the foetus. And bar ectopic pregnancy I have never come across or heard of any condition where a pre-viable foetus has to be destoryed to save the mother, whereby there are no other cures.

And I’m very well read on this sticky subject.

 

[vera_dicere]

Just considering the simplicity of the poll questions and the answers and not getting into all the nuancing. The poll questions cut the argument to the quick. The surprise to me is how they cut.

Do 80% who follow the Catholic teachings of Christ actually believe that a woman’s health or mortality doesn’t matter on this issue? – Or is this just a measure of the bias of this particular forum?

Very curious to me.

Two points:

One. The questions stated are loaded and are intended to display a hypocrisy in a pro-life mindset, and thereby attack the pro-life argument. They also express an ignorance in medical sciences that leads to an opinion that looks “anti-woman”.

Two: Pro-Lifers historically have shown more care and compassion to the woman in such a situation then the pro-abortion groups. The scenario made the false claim that killing the foetus (via termination of pregnancy) is the only way to save the mother. Therefore, the argument branched off into why the scenarios are fradulant.

The cold hard reality is, if the mum dies, the child dies. If we have no concern for the mother, we can’t logically hold concern for the child.

 

[benedictus2]

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).

On both counts, abortion is immoral.

What both situations boil down to is a case of your life or the childs. One life as against another.

The case for abortion that some might make would be from a purely utilitarian point of view - that is which life is more useful. But morality does not depend on usefulness but on whether it is right or wrong to kill.

On both instances it is a case of murder - a pre-meditated taking of human life.

The only moral answer is to allow nature to take its course.

Another poster on another thread asked: what if the mother has other children. Would it not be moral to kill the baby in the womb so that the mother can live to care for the other children?

So I put this scenario to her:

You have 4 children. Three are are at home and the your new born you decided to take with you to the bank. A demented gun man comes in and gives you a choice. Either he shoots your baby, or he shoots you.

What would be your choice?

And by the way, there is not wiggle room in this scenario. Not tackling the gun man, no reasoning with the gun man, etc,etc.

 

[benedictus2]

Just considering the simplicity of the poll questions and the answers and not getting into all the nuancing. The poll questions cut the argument to the quick. The surprise to me is how they cut.

Do 80% who follow the Catholic teachings of Christ actually believe that a woman’s health or mortality doesn’t matter on this issue? – Or is this just a measure of the bias of this particular forum?

There is no bias. The question is simple. One life for another. Who chooses? Do we? Is it our right to directly murder someone to protect another?

The only moral answer is to allow nature to take its course if there is no other moral solution that will allow both mother and child to live,

It is supreme arrogance to contend that an adult life is more valuable than a child’s.

The proponents of abortion have already been born and thus argue from a “right” they are determined to take away from someone else.

 

[flyingfish]

You have 4 children. Three are are at home and the your new born you decided to take with you to the bank. A demented gun man comes in and gives you a choice. Either he shoots your baby, or he shoots you.

What would be your choice?

And by the way, there is not wiggle room in this scenario. Not tackling the gun man, no reasoning with the gun man, etc,etc.

I would choose for me to live and for the newborn to die. As I said in the other abortion thread, I don’t think human beings become persons until they become conscious. Newborns don’t seem to be.

 

[benedictus2]

Yep, that’s what I said earlier on this thread. Why bother to have a poll if it’s fixed to reveal your own personal answer as the “right” answer. If you’re going to have a legitimate poll, at least provide more options so that you include more realistic solutions for people to choose. The way the poll was set up, it was orchestrated as a lose-lose.

Actually, I rather like the poll and the OP. It is good to bring these arguments out in the open so that we get to debunk them.

Relativism is all around us and it is good when we can actually argue for absolute truth.

 

[benedictus2]

I would choose for me to live and for the newborn to die. As I said in the other abortion thread, I don’t think human beings become persons until they become conscious. Newborns don’t seem to be.

Well, well, well. A mother who would actually allow a gunman to shoot her own child.

I hope you can actually play that scenario over and over and over in your head.

Nothing else to add here but to say that I have never ever thought I would actually come across someone here who would be that cold heartedly evil.

But I suppose that is not surprising. Mother’s kill their own child are always in the news. Psychopathy and sociopahy it seems is on the rise.