Abortion in the Case of the Mother's Life?

[fabio_rocha]

I found this on a website:
The Catholic Church teaches that we may never do evil to obtain good. Therefore, we believe that abortion in all cases is intrinsically evil. Murder of another innocent individual cannot be justified to save one’s life. Self-defense and defense of others is justified because it is not the killing of an innocent person. Abortion can never qualify as self-defense, though. Self-defense requires that the other party be the cause for one’s peril. In the case of a life-threatening pregnancy, the cause solely rests with the mother. It was the mother’s actions that brought about the pregnancy, and in all medically-known cases, it is the mother’s own physiology that makes the pregnancy dangerous to her. The child is completely innocent; merely existing in the natural state her parents placed her.

So a woman should really die for her baby?! Im married and it looks horrible this idea…

 

[1ke]

So a woman should really die for her baby?!

I don’t believe anyone, including the Catholic Church, teaches this.

When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he has two patients. He must do all in his power to save both. He may not kill either patient. He must certainly try to save both. He may not always be able to do so.

 

[underacloud]

Here is a recent discussion of the topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615327

I hope that answers your questions/concerns and shows that the Church does indeed care for the life of mother and child, even though there are difficult moral principles to consider.

 

[Newbie2]

Good answers, and I would add, what mother would not give up her life for her child?

 

[stevekehl]

First a little assurance about the need to abort a baby to save the mother. Listen to this from Dr. Alan Guttmacher, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
Two things about this statement, Dr. Guttmacher was an executive in Planned Parenthood, and he made this statement in 1967.
There are situations where treating an illness will kill the baby (chemotherapy), but in this situation women must decide if they are going to live their faith or commit a sin to save themselves. At times like this we must remember Jesus words,
Matt. 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.
The role of he church is not to make us feel better about our decisions, but to teach and guide us so our decisions are made according to the will of God. But the church is also there to support and encourage brothers and sisters going through trials, and situations don’t get much more trying than when pregnancy threatens the health of a mother.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

There are situations where treating an illness will kill the baby (chemotherapy), but in this situation women must decide if they are going to live their faith or commit a sin to save themselves.

You seem to be saying that agreeing to undergo chemotherapy treatments in an attempt to heal one’s body from the disease of cancer is sinful, if there is a ‘double effect’ of the chemotherapy also likely harming an unborn child. Can you confirm?

I agree that it is noble of women who make the choice to put their own life at risk so that their child may more likely survive, but I will question whether morality requires that they do so in this example to avoid sin.

And to admit for clarification purposes, this is off-topic. Chemotherapy treatments to heal the body from cancer is not abortion. Abortion is a procedure that has as its very intent the destruction of a human life.

 

[Rence]

You seem to be saying that agreeing to undergo chemotherapy treatments in an attempt to heal one’s body from the disease of cancer is sinful, if there is a ‘double effect’ of the chemotherapy also likely harming an unborn child. Can you confirm?

I caught that too. There is no “sin” in having chemotherapy while pregnant because it meets the criteria for the principle of double effect. If a woman has been diagnosed with cancer and needs treatment, she can have that treatment because that treatment is directed to the cancerous uterus, even if it has unintended harmful effects on the unborn.

I agree that it is noble of women who make the choice to put their own life at risk so that their child may more likely survive, but I will question whether morality requires that they do so in this example to avoid sin.

Noble, yes. But not required by the Church, and therefore not required by us.

And to admit for clarification purposes, this is off-topic. Chemotherapy treatments to heal the body from cancer is not abortion. Abortion is a procedure that has as its very intent the destruction of a human life.

I don’t believe it’s off topic though, because in some medical situations, I can understand why someone would be confused as to what is abortion and what is a medical treatment for an unrelated (and targeted to an unrelated) medical condition.