Abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger

[bzkoss236]

what you both are saying is incorrect. Yes, there is one, and that condition is called Eclampsia. If the baby is not removed out the mother’s body the mother will die as it is the child in and of itself that is causing the mother’s body to.enter into.convulsions until she dies and nothing can stop it. BUT and this is a big big BUT, eclampsia very rarely presents itself before 20 or 21 week therefore now a days given that this is right on the border of viability, doctors usually would perform a c-section to give the baby the chance to survive. So while there is a condition that is directly caused by the baby’s presence there is an alternative and licit option to save the mother’s life and I have never heard of a case that involves eclampsia under 19 weeks so the option should definitely be a c-section.

The other ailment is ectopic pregnancies where the embrio is going to die anyway and can cause the rupture of the tube and if that happens the mother will die. But as I said in this case removal of the tube before rupture would be the licit option.

The problem here again isn’t that the baby is alive, but it is the placenta that causes the issue. The fact that the child is alive is not the issue here. Basically, the issue is ultimately caused by all complications of pregnancy, that they got pregnant.

So, I still stand by my statement that the fact the baby is alive is never the cause of a disorder.

I never said that the problem wasn’t that the baby was present in the womb, but the fact that the baby has life.

 

[Pug]

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, if I understand correctly, the fallopian tube with the implanted embryo/fetus can be removed which would indirectly cause the death of the fetus and this would not be morally objectionable because of the principle of double effect.

Be aware that not all ectopic pregnancies are in a fallopian tube. Some are located elsewhere, like in the abdomen.

 

[marypiopadre]

Hi,

I just found this thread, I was diagnosed with preeclampsia at 20 weeks - im one of the rare cases. I hung on for as long as I could and I nearly made it to 24 weeks, my platelets that clot blood dropped so low and my stomach was filled with fluid (I went from a size 12 to 16 in a week) because of the fluid in my belly. They induced me into labour - the baby was equivalent to 19 weeks,
They did not induce me to kill the baby but to save my life.I am worried I should have asked for a C section but i’m not sure what that would of done to me with all the fluid.

 

[Pug]

Hi,

I just found this thread, I was diagnosed with preeclampsia at 20 weeks - im one of the rare cases. I hung on for as long as I could and I nearly made it to 24 weeks, my platelets that clot blood dropped so low and my stomach was filled with fluid (I went from a size 12 to 16 in a week) because of the fluid in my belly. They induced me into labour - the baby was equivalent to 19 weeks,
They did not induce me to kill the baby but to save my life.I am worried I should have asked for a C section but i’m not sure what that would of done to me with all the fluid.

Marypiopadre,

I’m glad you are still with us, and I see you are fairly new here so welcome. Around here if it is an older thread like this one (several years old), probably few will answer you and it would work better to start a new thread to catch people’s eye. I only noticed because it is still in my subscriptions list and it popped to the top.

Did you recover well? I assume since you mention formation of 19 weeks, that your child could not breathe. I am so sorry.

Remember, your parish priest would be happy to answer a question like that if you asked him (you can usually make an appointment if you like). I don’t even know what would have been medically possible in your situation, so I can’t really answer you.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **