Abortion for sake of mother's life

  • Thread starter Thread starter JLCecilia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JLCecilia

Guest
DH raised the question some time ago and I was really only able to give a partial answer, I’m hoping some of you can help me complete it. He asked me ‘what if the life of the mother was at stake, wouldn’t an abortion be acceptable then,’ even questioning how you could expect a mother/couple to make the sacrifice of the very mother’s life in the name of being pro-life/anti-abortion.

My explanation was that with modern medicine as advanced as it is today, such an instance would be very rare. In the case of tubal or ectopic pregnancies, often times removing that section of the tube along with the baby is accepted if it is determined that the baby has already expired, or even if given the chance, that the baby would not survive anyway. As a dig, I mentioned (whether true or not, just loosely citing Dr.Janet Smith) that the rise in tubal and ectopic pregnancies (as well as the physical disorders that lead to them) can be directly related to the increased availability and use of ABC. (feel free to correct me/elaborate on this if you like, I’d actually like some distinct clarification on this as well) Otherwise, I had no explanation.

Of course I sited St.Gianna’s story, but that wasn’t satisfactory. Truly, if faced with the situation myself, I’m not sure that I would be able to make the strictest pro-life choice, even being staunchly pro-life myself otherwise.

Thanks so much.
 
Hi JL,

I don’t profess to be a moral theologian, so please do not take my words as gospel. I am open to discussion and enlightenment as this is a discussion I recently had with my 21 year old daughter. Here (for better or worse) is what I told her.

First, a doctor and all participants can not will an abortion. That is. they can never willfully destroy the baby for any reason even to “save” the mother. The intent must be to save both. If during the process of trying to save both, one dies that is consequential to the procedure and not the result of a deliberate act.

Most abortions occur as a result of chemical intrusion or diememberment. (I’m not even going to include PBA). When the mother’s life is at risk most doctors would not even bother trying to destroy the baby using the methods cited. No, instead, they would take appropriate lifesaving tactics. If the baby (or the mother) were to perish during this activity it would indeed be tragic but not morally wrong.
 
cargau said:
Hi JL,

I don’t profess to be a moral theologian, so please do not take my words as gospel. I am open to discussion and enlightenment as this is a discussion I recently had with my 21 year old daughter. Here (for better or worse) is what I told her.

First, a doctor and all participants can not will an abortion. That is. they can never willfully destroy the baby for any reason even to “save” the mother. The intent must be to save both. If during the process of trying to save both, one dies that is consequential to the procedure and not the result of a deliberate act.

Most abortions occur as a result of chemical intrusion or diememberment. (I’m not even going to include PBA). When the mother’s life is at risk most doctors would not even bother trying to destroy the baby using the methods cited. No, instead, they would take appropriate lifesaving tactics. If the baby (or the mother) were to perish during this activity it would indeed be tragic but not morally wrong.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding as well, also not being a moral theologian. Abortions are never morally acceptable, not under any circumstances including health risks posed to the mother. Actions can be taken to help the mother but death of the child must not be the objective of those actions - it must be a tragic and unintended side effect of treating the mother. This is how I have heard several priests describe it.

As far as I can tell, the Church’s teaching as conveyed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees:

***2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.:** 75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

2323 Because it should be treated as a person from conception, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed like every other human being.*

Even with knowledge of the right answer, I can’t imagine being in that situation. It would destroy me to even think about having to make this sort of choice regarding my wife.
 
cargau said:
Hi JL,

I don’t profess to be a moral theologian, so please do not take my words as gospel. I am open to discussion and enlightenment as this is a discussion I recently had with my 21 year old daughter. Here (for better or worse) is what I told her.

First, a doctor and all participants can not will an abortion. That is. they can never willfully destroy the baby for any reason even to “save” the mother. The intent must be to save both. If during the process of trying to save both, one dies that is consequential to the procedure and not the result of a deliberate act.

Most abortions occur as a result of chemical intrusion or diememberment. (I’m not even going to include PBA). When the mother’s life is at risk most doctors would not even bother trying to destroy the baby using the methods cited. No, instead, they would take appropriate lifesaving tactics. If the baby (or the mother) were to perish during this activity it would indeed be tragic but not morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Seldom do physicians face the dilemma of saving the mother or child, but maybe where choice is made, it will be according to the rule of triage: you give your attention to the one who has the better chance of survival.
 
JLCecilia said:
DH raised the question some time ago and I was really only able to give a partial answer, I’m hoping some of you can help me complete it. He asked me **‘what if the life of the mother was at stake, wouldn’t an abortion be acceptable then,’ **even questioning how you could expect a mother/couple to make the sacrifice of the very mother’s life in the name of being pro-life/anti-abortion.

My explanation was that with modern medicine as advanced as it is today, such an instance would be very rare. In the case of tubal or ectopic pregnancies, often times removing that section of the tube along with the baby is accepted if it is determined that the baby has already expired, or even if given the chance, that the baby would not survive anyway. As a dig, I mentioned (whether true or not, just loosely citing Dr.Janet Smith) that the rise in tubal and ectopic pregnancies (as well as the physical disorders that lead to them) can be directly related to the increased availability and use of ABC. (feel free to correct me/elaborate on this if you like, I’d actually like some distinct clarification on this as well) Otherwise, I had no explanation.

Of course I sited St.Gianna’s story, but that wasn’t satisfactory. Truly, if faced with the situation myself, I’m not sure that I would be able to make the strictest pro-life choice, even being staunchly pro-life myself otherwise.

Thanks so much.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is in the wording of the question. The best answer is the mother is allowed medical treatments intended to restore her health. If restoring her health or stabilizing her health results in the loss of the baby that is tragedy but not sin. The problem is the question uses the term “abortion” which is usually associated with and intent to remove a baby before it can survive. So in summary if the intent is to save the mother no sin, while if the intent is to abort then sin exists. The latter is typical of the one who wants no children and attempts to hide behind the - pregnancy is dangerous - issue. Though pregnancy is dangerous it is a normal part of life and does not justify killing the baby.
hope that helps
 
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn is staunchly Pro-life – and also an OB/GYN.

I recall reading something he said on this subject; namely, that in all the years of his medical practice, and of all the many thousands of babies he’s delivered, he had only encountered two cases in his entire medical career in which there was a TRUE mother/baby type of emergency (at the time of labor and delivery). Even if the baby died in such a situation, “abortion” would not be the word I would use to describe this tragedy.

The notion that “the life of the mother” is a common situation seems to me to be a canard used by the Pro-abortion advocates to further their agenda.

St. Gianna’s situation is unique. As I understand it (and she is a heroine of our family; our youngest is named after her) she chose to forgo surgery which *may *have caused the death of her unborn child. If she had allowed the surgery and the child had died, even then this would not have been the direct intent, but rather a subsequent result. As I see it, her action here went beyond the realm of virtue into ***heroic ***virtue ultimately leading to her canonization.

Again, I’ll re-iterate what other posters have said as well. In the United States of America, the cases of *legitimate *mother/baby types of emergency requiring life or death decisions in the delivery room are so rare, so few, and so far between, that the question becomes almost meaningless. It’s the pro-abortion lobby who wants to make people believe otherwise.

Blessings,
 
JLCecilia said:
… He asked me ‘what if the life of the mother was at stake, wouldn’t an abortion be acceptable then,’ even questioning how you could expect a mother/couple to make the sacrifice of the very mother’s life in the name of being pro-life/anti-abortion.
…
Click to expand...
Here’s a recent news story about a woman whose life was endangered by continuing her pregnancy so the doctors delivered her LIVE baby at 26 weeks gestation. lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060307.html
PITTSBURGH, June 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On March 12, parents Brittany Rideout and Adam Bouchat welcomed their beautiful and extraordinarily tiny little girl, Taylor Rideout, at Magee-Women’s Hospital of UPMC in Pittsburgh. Born at 26 weeks gestation, Taylor was a mere 12.5 ounces or 350 grams, about the size of a pop can. …Faced with the possibility of death for both mother and child, they chose to deliver baby Taylor at 26 weeks. According to Taylor’s doctor, Dr. Jennifer Kloesz, the smallest babies they had delivered before Taylor were about 500 grams, but these babies were only 24 weeks gestation. Dr. Kloesz said that Taylor was about half the size of a normal 26-week baby.
Click to expand...
Often in cases where people site the “life of the mother”, the pregnancy is further along in the second or third trimester. Premature babies can be saved. This recent story of inducing labor with the baby born alive prematurely then cared for in a hospital shows that it is possible to end a pregnancy without ending the life of the child.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
I think the problem is in the wording of the question. The best answer is the mother is allowed medical treatments intended to restore her health. If restoring her health or stabilizing her health results in the loss of the baby that is tragedy but not sin. The problem is the question uses the term “abortion” which is usually associated with and intent to remove a baby before it can survive. *So in summary if the intent is to save the mother no sin, while if the intent is to abort then sin exists. *The latter is typical of the one who wants no children and attempts to hide behind the - pregnancy is dangerous - issue. Though pregnancy is dangerous it is a normal part of life and does not justify killing the baby.
hope that helps
Click to expand...
I just wanted to clarify this one sentence, because I don’t think you meant it the way it came out: Medical treatment to save the life of the mother can occur, even if as a side-effect the baby would die.

No act may be taken which directly targets the baby.

For example: in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, in which the baby is in the mother’s tube rather than in the womb, and operation to remove that part of the tube may be performed, even tho that will include removal of the baby, who will then die. The intent of the action is to remove the tube, not the baby.

However, there is now a new way of handling an ectopic pregnancy, which is to deliver a poison to the area where the baby is, which will kill the baby and save the tube. The *intention *of this action is to kill the baby to remove the danger to the mother rather than to do something which removes the danger to the mother which unfortunately includes the death of the baby.
 
I have a question to ask for those of you who believe that getting an abortion to save the life of the mother would be immoral. Why is it that you hold a fetus’ life as more important than the woman’s life?
 
RainbowGirl82 said:
I have a question to ask for those of you who believe that getting an abortion to save the life of the mother would be immoral. Why is it that you hold a fetus’ life as more important than the woman’s life?
Click to expand...
We do not. Just as we hold no action to unjustly kill the mother as moral we hold no action to unjustly kill the baby as moral.
 
Is your husband Catholic, if not does he have any faith tradition - it helps in the discussion to know the background of the person.
 
There is another thing that occurred to me here: Whenever this question is raised, there is the implication that an abortion is somehow “safe” & “simple”, and that the mother is going to survive what is, in reality, a brutal, bloody, and extremely invasive surgery. And that;s just not a reasonable assumption.
Abortion is not just going to kill the baby; it is going to cause serious physical trauma to the woman’s body as well. I mean, women bleed to death from abortion–and yes, I mean from abortions done by medical professionals. Not to mention all the other possible complications. (Which are numerous, and more than a little likely).
Women are designed to give birth to babies. Now, I would like to hear anyone argue that we are designed to be :eek:strapped down,and have our uterus :eek:scraped out with a cutting tool.
I speak as someone who has had a D&C done (post-menopause,non-maternity related, for–supposedly–“cleaning up” an overgrowth in the uterus lining…No fooling, people, it was easier to get over open heart surgery than it was to get over that.

The pro-abortion people have seriously, seriously, :sad_yes:lied to all of us about the reality of what an abortion is like. And the old D&C type is actually the* least* problematic of the various procedures abortionists use…
This question is based on a false premise. Even if someone is able to convince themselves that abortion is sometimes “justifiable” (though it is NOT), it is still a question of a desperately dangerous procedure being done on a woman whose health is all ready compromised.

I am really thinking more & more, that we who are pro-life need to stop allowing the :mad:pro-aborts to act like an abortion is some kind of a cakewalk. :nope:You know??

:twocents:
 
Texas_Roofer said:
We do not. Just as we hold no action to unjustly kill the mother as moral we hold no action to unjustly kill the baby as moral.
Click to expand...
Ok, a direct abortion to save the life of the mother is forbidden right? If so, why? What if the pregnant woman has a very small chance to survive unless she gets an abortion and the fetus has a very small chance of surviving anyway, is abortion an abortion with the aim of saving the life of the mother still wrong? 🤷:confused:
 
RainbowGirl82 said:
Ok, a direct abortion to save the life of the mother is forbidden right? If so, why? What if the pregnant woman has a very small chance to survive unless she gets an abortion and the fetus has a very small chance of surviving anyway, is abortion an abortion with the aim of saving the life of the mother still wrong? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
If you needed a heart transplant, would die without it, and your 3 year old cousin had a perfect match heart - would it be moral to kill the child to save you?

Same thing.

Another question, can you name for me one medical condition that a pregnant woman can have, now, today, with modern medicine, where a direc abortion would be the only way to save her life?
 
kage_ar said:
If you needed a heart transplant, would die without it, and your 3 year old cousin had a perfect match heart - would it be moral to kill the child to save you?

Same thing.

Another question, can you name for me one medical condition that a pregnant woman can have, now, today, with modern medicine, where a direc abortion would be the only way to save her life?
Click to expand...
No, it would not be moral to kill a child who had a perfectly matching heart so that another person could live. And no, I cannot name one medical condition that a pregnant woman can have where a direct abortion would be the only way to save her life.
 
As you said, advances in medicine make it very unlikely here in the US that another option cannot be found in a situation where a mother’s health is compromised. Eptopic pregnancies have been discussed here exhaustively. The damaged tube can be removed and that is not considered an abortion. Usually in an eptopic preganacy the baby is not viable anyway. Later in the pregnancy many treatments for the mother can be delayed or postponed until the baby can be delivered–either at term or when the Drs judge it to be safe for the baby. We also have many alternate treatments for conditions like cancer. Unfortunately, our medical culture is very pro-abortion and Drs often automatically counsel an abortion first without discussing options. Possibly this is for free of malpractice charges, so a change in the law for this would really change Drs behaviors!
 
RainbowGirl82 said:
Ok, a direct abortion to save the life of the mother is forbidden right? If so, why? What if the pregnant woman has a very small chance to survive unless she gets an abortion and the fetus has a very small chance of surviving anyway, **is abortion an abortion **with the aim of saving the life of the mother still wrong? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
We have to be careful here with the wording. I know of no case where aborting the baby is the actual answer. For example in ectopic pregnancy* ( baby is growing in the wrong place) the objective of stopping the tube from bursting is different in intent from desiring to remove the baby. From a scientific approach we can say the procedure is one in the same, however from analyzing intention we see a different objective. Intention is inherent to sin but not science. Within the church teachings losing a baby through treating the mother is not sin. As the primary objective is to treat the mother, while taking a baby as a primary object is sin. So in church teachings we do not desire a direct abortion, we desire to restore the mother’s health. So scientifically “is abortion an abortion” is yes, while in Church teachings we separate lost fetuses by intent. I am not sure how else to explain it.

*same is true for other issues as bleeding, infections, etc., etc.
 
Under what conditions can we kill a post birth child when the child’s mother’s life is at stake?

Now, what about pre-birth?

Why do things change simply because of the action of passing through a birth canal? What happens there that magically makes all the difference?
 
We try to save both.

If there’s a situation where a treatment to save the life of the mother may, as a side effect, endanger or kill the unborn baby, then the principle of double effect applies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top