S
st_lucy
Guest
Wow! I love stories like this. God always draws straight with crooked lines. Imagine how many other GREAT people their could be if abortion was not around?
- Status
J
joandarc2008
Guest
One of the best homilies I have ever seen on abortion was at a teen mass. The father took four teens and brought them up to the front - he then asked the Parish which one we wanted to kill. We were all a little shocked as we had not had any preamble to this. He then told us that 1 in 4 teen pregnancies today is ended in abortion so this is a decision that is made everyday. It really put a picture to it.
B
bp1984
Guest
Maybe I’m thinking just a little differently here, but why is the first thing a person’s mind jumps to is abortion? There are more options than either keeping your baby or having an abortion. Why do people not think adoption? If you think it will be too tramatic for you to keep a child concieved in violence then why not let someone who really wants a child raise your’s?
Maybe I’m just really naive.
Maybe I’m just really naive.
R
ryecroft
Guest
Not to play devil’s advocate, but you could just as easily say what if you knew the infant would look exactly like your rapist.
and as far as abortion never being allowed - when the docterine of double effect comes into play, it can be- when the woman will certainly die and the pregnancy is not at a viable stage- there is no reason two have two people die instead of only one. I agree that if both lives can be saved than do so but there are situations where this isn’t a possibility. For instance - needing to remove the fetus in order to help stop the bleeding - if the fetus was viable than it could be born, but at a non viable age it won’t make it
God Bless - Rye
S
shannyk
Guest
rye, I have seen you say this a couple of times here in the forums and I want to make sure you’re clear on the teaching of the Church.
It is never licit to cause the direct abortion of another human being even if it would possibly or even definitely (but there are no such cases medically speaking) save the life of another.
The principal of double effect doesn’t apply when the intent is to abort the baby to save the mother. It would apply if say, there was an ectopic pregnancy and the entire tube was removed with the baby in it and subsequently died. In this case the diseased part of the body is removed to remove the medical problem and the baby demise is secondary to that. If for instance the baby was removed from the tube, that would be a direct abortion and that is obviously not licit.
In the case of a mother and baby being in a life threatening situation (and I have some experience with this as a NICU nurse and I have a cousin who just went through this very situation with HELLP syndrome) where delivery of the baby is inevitable or the only remedy, the only licit thing to do is deliver the baby and offer appropriate medical care to the baby and mother.
I hope this make things a bit more clear.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You know, I find this differentiation to seem reasonable on the surface, but not so upon further thought. If we assume it is true that there is never a situation where the direct abortion of a non-viable baby would be required to save at least the mother, it is easy not to think too much about it.rye, I have seen you say this a couple of times here in the forums and I want to make sure you’re clear on the teaching of the Church.
It is never licit to cause the direct abortion of another human being even if it would possibly or even definitely (but there are no such cases medically speaking) save the life of another.
The principal of double effect doesn’t apply when the intent is to abort the baby to save the mother. It would apply if say, there was an ectopic pregnancy and the entire tube was removed with the baby in it and subsequently died. In this case the diseased part of the body is removed to remove the medical problem and the baby demise is secondary to that. If for instance the baby was removed from the tube, that would be a direct abortion and that is obviously not licit.
In the case of a mother and baby being in a life threatening situation (and I have some experience with this as a NICU nurse and I have a cousin who just went through this very situation with HELLP syndrome) where delivery of the baby is inevitable or the only remedy, the only licit thing to do is deliver the baby and offer appropriate medical care to the baby and mother.
I hope this make things a bit more clear.
But what if it wasn’t? And I think in fact it sometimes isn’t. What about the rare cases when an ectopic pregnancy doesn’t happen within a tube that can be removed, but in one of the empty spaces in the abdomen? One would then have to directly remove the embryo and associated tissue. There is no way I can see to justify that in the same way as saying “Oh, we removed the diseased tube, the baby was an unintended effect of that.” The action would directly be removing what was threatening the life of the mother - the embryo.
And would anyone say that it would make sense not to? Unfortunately we have no way of saving a developing baby at that stage - not even close. The pregnancy will always kill the mother before it could be viable. How does that seem sensible in any way - two deaths rather than one?
And even if such a situation was only likely theoretically, how could it be justified.
To me it is more like there are two people drowning, and not only do we have to choose one to save, there is only one who can be saved because the other is too far away and we don’t have a boat. I know the CC doesn’t see it as the same because one is passive and the other active, but I am not convinced in this case.
R
ryecroft
Guest
Actually, it doesn’t- because you’re saying that there is never a medical case where this occurs and I’m living proof that there are medical cases where what I described does happen. I don’t want to start a debate as this is not at all what this post is about. So yes, there are medical cases - I have been told that this was not a “direct abortion” but it was necessary to remove the child as the bleeding was not not just coming in the form of hematuria but also inside of me. My Doctor said there was no way to save the pregnancy at the time and my husband was told what needed to be done in order to save me as I was loosing blood almost faster than it could be replaced at one point. I wish there would have been a way to keep the pregnancy going and me alive - I was told I was lucky they didn’t have to comit a hysterectomy. This was a number of years ago and i’m happy to report that we only have to get one more aproval from a doctor before we’re allowed to try to get pregnant again. The bad side is, I’m told that almost immediately, for the health of the baby and given my past number of miscarriages and the event I describe here, I’ll be on bedrest very early on. I’m actually asking for prayers that not only am I able to get pregnant and carry at least long enough to deliver without having to go through anything horrible. I"m told it will slmost effinately have to be a c-section. It has to do with something about my uterus seperating or something like that. I’m also praying that my husband will get more excited about this although it’s a scarry time for both of us.rye, I have seen you say this a couple of times here in the forums and I want to make sure you’re clear on the teaching of the Church.
It is never licit to cause the direct abortion of another human being even if it would possibly or even definitely (but there are no such cases medically speaking) save the life of another.
The principal of double effect doesn’t apply when the intent is to abort the baby to save the mother. It would apply if say, there was an ectopic pregnancy and the entire tube was removed with the baby in it and subsequently died. In this case the diseased part of the body is removed to remove the medical problem and the baby demise is secondary to that. If for instance the baby was removed from the tube, that would be a direct abortion and that is obviously not licit.
In the case of a mother and baby being in a life threatening situation (and I have some experience with this as a NICU nurse and I have a cousin who just went through this very situation with HELLP syndrome) where delivery of the baby is inevitable or the only remedy, the only licit thing to do is deliver the baby and offer appropriate medical care to the baby and mother.
I hope this make things a bit more clear.
R
rpp
Guest
Shanny, in the case of most types of ectopic (tubal) pregnancies, the result, if the child is not removed, is death for both. As a nurse, I am certain I do not have to explain to you what that is, but for the benefit of other who do not have your training in nursing, let me give you my best understanding.rye, I have seen you say this a couple of times here in the forums and I want to make sure you’re clear on the teaching of the Church.
It is never licit to cause the direct abortion of another human being even if it would possibly or even definitely (but there are no such cases medically speaking) save the life of another.
The principal of double effect doesn’t apply when the intent is to abort the baby to save the mother. It would apply if say, there was an ectopic pregnancy and the entire tube was removed with the baby in it and subsequently died. In this case the diseased part of the body is removed to remove the medical problem and the baby demise is secondary to that. If for instance the baby was removed from the tube, that would be a direct abortion and that is obviously not licit.
In the case of a mother and baby being in a life threatening situation (and I have some experience with this as a NICU nurse and I have a cousin who just went through this very situation with HELLP syndrome) where delivery of the baby is inevitable or the only remedy, the only licit thing to do is deliver the baby and offer appropriate medical care to the baby and mother.
I hope this make things a bit more clear.
After conception, normally this very young person moves down the fallopian tube and into the uterus and implants there, to grow and eventually be born. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the child becomes stuck in the fallopian tube and implants there. Unfortunately, this is very dangerous. As the child grows, he/she begins to impinge on the mothers other organs, eventually causing a catastrophic injury leading to dramatic blood loss and evennntual death by internal exsangunation (bleeding to death). this usually happens before the end of the first trimester.
In extraordinarily rare circumstances, (less than 5 cases have ever been reported, if I recall correctly) a child can develop and grow to th epoint where he/she can survive or even come to term. However, unless this is diagnosed before labor begins, the child and mother will both certainly die; the child has to be born surgically.
Thus when ryecroft talks about “double-effect” he is referring to the fact that aborting a child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, is not the intent. The intent is to save the woman from a life-threatening situation. Unfortunately, current medical technology does not give us a way to save both the child and the mother.
(Please notice that in my above explanation I never used the somewhat dehumanizing wor, “fetus”.)
I will close by saying I have a wonderful and dear friend, who will be entering a convent soon, who had two ectopic pregnancies. In both cases, she had a rupture and nearly died on both occasions. Sadly, not only did she lose both her children, she also lost both her fallopian tubes, rendering her sterile.
S
sedonaman
Guest
- They are misinformed [so what else is new?] by any number of elements, e.g., the media, their misinformed peers, and/or pro-abortion politicians claiming to be Catholic;
- they are dissidents;
- they are rationalizing.
P
philialeaf
Guest
Prayers for everyone who has been hurt by the crime of rape or the crime of abortion.
I was excited to find that a booklet I own is available online. It is “Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These My Brethren”.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/AB15.TXT
I was excited to find that a booklet I own is available online. It is “Exceptions: Abandoning the Least of These My Brethren”.
ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/AB15.TXT
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
There really aren’t many medical problems nowadays that require an abortion to save the mother. We’ve already discussed extrauterine pregnancies, which are not viable. Were there a way to reimplant the baby in the uterus properly, it would be done. But the situation usually presents itself when the mother is in an emergent situation and to fix the physical problem with the mother has a secondary unintended effect of the baby’s death.
As for other situations, most OBs try to put the mother on bedrest and help the pregnancy go as long as possible. If her medical status changed, the doctors would probably perform a C-section and attend to the medical needs of the child and the mother. If the child was too early to be viable… that can’t be helped. But as a mother, which do you do:
And I’ve been in the position where I might have had to choose. With the knowlege I had at the time, I was ready to go ahead and let the baby live and deal with my own situation later, whether it was too late or not. What would my health have mattered if it was purchased at the price of my own child’s life? It did not come to that, but I know how the choice can feel. So I’m not being heartless here.
The whole argument is a basic red herring in this day and age when they can do surgery in utero. And it certainly doesn’t account for the 1.4 million abortions performed in this country annually.
As for other situations, most OBs try to put the mother on bedrest and help the pregnancy go as long as possible. If her medical status changed, the doctors would probably perform a C-section and attend to the medical needs of the child and the mother. If the child was too early to be viable… that can’t be helped. But as a mother, which do you do:
- We’re going to perform an emergency C-section. We will do whatever we can to hasten lung development in the baby and try to help it along or give it surgery and save its life. If we can’t, we will make the baby as comfortable as possible, lovingly wrap it in a blanket and give you a few minutes with it and get it baptized before it dies.
- Well, the baby isn’t going to make it. We’re going to save you. So we’re going to insert a curette in there and chop it up and extract it and… oh, by the way, that’s still living tissue there, can we quick grab it and sell it to medical researchers? Might be useful to those stem cell people…
And I’ve been in the position where I might have had to choose. With the knowlege I had at the time, I was ready to go ahead and let the baby live and deal with my own situation later, whether it was too late or not. What would my health have mattered if it was purchased at the price of my own child’s life? It did not come to that, but I know how the choice can feel. So I’m not being heartless here.
The whole argument is a basic red herring in this day and age when they can do surgery in utero. And it certainly doesn’t account for the 1.4 million abortions performed in this country annually.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
In the case of an early pregnancy though, the method for abortion and for causing deliver can actually be the same. That is, the drugs given cause the uterus to expel the baby, which is not able to live. The difference in such a case between abortion and early delivery would only really be intent.
S
sedonaman
Guest
That’s right! It’s the kid’s fault, so punish him.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Some of you reading this thread might appreciate this human interest story about the re-union of a mother and with the child she put up for adoption who was conceived due to rape. wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112324
From the story:
From the story:
S
shannyk
Guest
you know what bluegoat that is a good question, regarding the third space ectopic. I really don’t know what the answer to that would be. That is surely a tricky and thankfully extremely rare occurrence. I think it would be one of those things that could only be based upon the individual medical circumstances, where exactly the fetus was developing etc. A good question for a moral theologian for sure. My guess would be that removing the fetus intact along with any associated or nearby tissue would be advised, but I can’t say for sure. Still, a direct abortion when the intent is to kill the fetus to remove it and end the danger for the mother would have to be illicit.
ryecroft, I am very sorry for your loss and what you wen through. I can’t imagine how frightening and upsetting this must continue to be for you. I don’t want to debate about your specific situation because I’m in no position to, but , what the Church says regarding abortion is clear. Abortion is by it’s definition the direct ending of a human life and can never be licit even to save the mother. I will add that while there are sometimes cases where it is, medically speaking, easier, less risky, or less harmful to the mother to perform an abortion than to deliver the baby and offer both appropriate medical care, there is no situation where it is* necessary*. Dr.s don’t always put it that way though so patients can be out in a real bind.
is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Code:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
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.rpp ectopic pregnancies are extremely dangerous indeed. I’m glad your friend survived. It sounds like though she did exactly what the Church says is appropriate, had the tube removed, not the fetus removed from the tube. Removing the diseased tube is not at all an abortion since an abortion by definition is direct killing.
And isn’t that something to think about…indeed. The difference in many cases between a baby who lives and one who dies is whether or not they’re wanted. The wanted baby gets the best care and the unwanted one gets none.Thank God intentionally delivering a preterm baby with the willful intent of not administering appropriate medical care is illegal here in the US. Too bad live birth abortions go on anyway in probably far bigger numbers than we know.
M
ML561
Guest
Grace and Peace be with all of you.
I believe it is vitally important to support a woman who is pregnant by rape or incest, to see that she gets counseling if needed and friendship, also financial support and medical attention. It is not enough to just say “abortion is wrong.” A woman who has been through that trauma needs help, as well as does her unborn baby. She will also need support whether she decides to keep the baby or to give the child up for adoption. It is also most important that she not be made to feel that she has done anything wrong or made to feel embarrassed. Any shame or embarrassment belongs to the man who raped her. Women in these situations may feel very much alone. As part of the Body of Christ we must reach out to these women and their children.
I was a victim of rape twice, both times by a stranger who invaded my home. The rapes did not result in pregnancy, but if they had, I would have faced a great deal of trauma and would have needed support. My family (non-Catholics) would never have understood and would most likely have counseled my getting an abortion.
I do feel that in general, while well-intentioned, many pro-life people simply do not know, or are ill-equipped to handle, the complex emotions and the hardships that go along with any unexpected pregnancy, especially that which is a result of rape or incest. I would plead with all of us to consider and respect the woman’s feelings. Someone who is pregnant by an act of violence is not likely to be delighted that she is going to have a baby. Even married women in a loving relationship may feel ambivalent about pregnancy, and they should not be made to feel like bad people because of this.
Compassion, not judgment, please.
I believe it is vitally important to support a woman who is pregnant by rape or incest, to see that she gets counseling if needed and friendship, also financial support and medical attention. It is not enough to just say “abortion is wrong.” A woman who has been through that trauma needs help, as well as does her unborn baby. She will also need support whether she decides to keep the baby or to give the child up for adoption. It is also most important that she not be made to feel that she has done anything wrong or made to feel embarrassed. Any shame or embarrassment belongs to the man who raped her. Women in these situations may feel very much alone. As part of the Body of Christ we must reach out to these women and their children.
I was a victim of rape twice, both times by a stranger who invaded my home. The rapes did not result in pregnancy, but if they had, I would have faced a great deal of trauma and would have needed support. My family (non-Catholics) would never have understood and would most likely have counseled my getting an abortion.
I do feel that in general, while well-intentioned, many pro-life people simply do not know, or are ill-equipped to handle, the complex emotions and the hardships that go along with any unexpected pregnancy, especially that which is a result of rape or incest. I would plead with all of us to consider and respect the woman’s feelings. Someone who is pregnant by an act of violence is not likely to be delighted that she is going to have a baby. Even married women in a loving relationship may feel ambivalent about pregnancy, and they should not be made to feel like bad people because of this.
Compassion, not judgment, please.
M
ML561
Guest
Again, may grace and peace be with you all.
The mother of a good friend was pregnant with her fifth child and doctors discovered she had cancer of the uterus. Her pregnancy was about 2 or 3 months advanced, but the doctors determined that the cancer was also in an advanced stage and that the only hope of saving her life was a hysterectomy. She wanted to save the baby but was told that if she continued with the pregnancy she would die and so would the baby, but if she had the hysterectomy there was a good chance she would survive.
Her cancer, according to doctors, would have killed her and the baby if the pregnancy continued. If she continued with the pregnancy, both she and the baby would have died, leaving four young children with no mother. After two weeks of agony, she decided on the hysterectomy. She is now a healthy woman in her sixties who was able to see her four children grow up.
It was a terrible dilemma for this woman, as she loved all her children and wanted more. In her early stage of pregnancy and with her cancer as advanced as it was, neither she nor the baby could have survived without the hysterectomy.
One question I have: we seem to be quite frank about our thoughts here on this forum in general. Are women expendable? Are we just to be considered throwaway containers for the next generation?
I ask this because the woman I spoke about earlier: Her husband and four young children would have been devastated if she had died. As it happened, she was heartbroken by the loss of her fifth child and the hysterectomy. Yet she has lived on to become a college professor and a published writer who has given much service to her community, as well as a dedicated family woman. What would her death have accomplished? It would not have saved her child, as the child was too young to live outside the womb.
Isn’t her life important? Isn’t everyone’s life important? Peace
The mother of a good friend was pregnant with her fifth child and doctors discovered she had cancer of the uterus. Her pregnancy was about 2 or 3 months advanced, but the doctors determined that the cancer was also in an advanced stage and that the only hope of saving her life was a hysterectomy. She wanted to save the baby but was told that if she continued with the pregnancy she would die and so would the baby, but if she had the hysterectomy there was a good chance she would survive.
Her cancer, according to doctors, would have killed her and the baby if the pregnancy continued. If she continued with the pregnancy, both she and the baby would have died, leaving four young children with no mother. After two weeks of agony, she decided on the hysterectomy. She is now a healthy woman in her sixties who was able to see her four children grow up.
It was a terrible dilemma for this woman, as she loved all her children and wanted more. In her early stage of pregnancy and with her cancer as advanced as it was, neither she nor the baby could have survived without the hysterectomy.
One question I have: we seem to be quite frank about our thoughts here on this forum in general. Are women expendable? Are we just to be considered throwaway containers for the next generation?
I ask this because the woman I spoke about earlier: Her husband and four young children would have been devastated if she had died. As it happened, she was heartbroken by the loss of her fifth child and the hysterectomy. Yet she has lived on to become a college professor and a published writer who has given much service to her community, as well as a dedicated family woman. What would her death have accomplished? It would not have saved her child, as the child was too young to live outside the womb.
Isn’t her life important? Isn’t everyone’s life important? Peace
C
CntrySngr72
Guest
Not to beat a dead horse, but I had two scenarios given to me that I would like some insight on. The woman who posed these to me is not Catholic, and is Pro-Choice…I feel a trap, but know better than to fall for it.
I went on to say: If you tell me that it is okay for any child in the womb to be terminated, then you are saying that life has no value…and if THAT child has no value, then that would mean no child has value - so I could kill a child riding a bike down the street just the same, since he/she has no value, right?
The last part was a bit harsh, but my point to her was all life has value. At any rate - can I get some feedback on the two numbered scenarios above…especially the second scenario?
Thank you!
- How about the 11 year old girl who didn’t have a choice and was raped and made pregnant by her dad or uncle? What now? Did she have the choice to abstain? No, but he did.
- I have a sister in law who was deathly ill due to her pregnancy of a child with Spina Bifida. The chances of the child living IF it made it to full term were slim to none, and she was facing death to continue trying to carry it. It was hard for her to be in a clinic to be terminating a pregnancy that she wanted surrounded by girls termination pregnancies that were just inconvenient. But it was a medical necessity, and I do not fault her for it. Shw is now the mother of three other children.
I went on to say: If you tell me that it is okay for any child in the womb to be terminated, then you are saying that life has no value…and if THAT child has no value, then that would mean no child has value - so I could kill a child riding a bike down the street just the same, since he/she has no value, right?
The last part was a bit harsh, but my point to her was all life has value. At any rate - can I get some feedback on the two numbered scenarios above…especially the second scenario?
Thank you!
L
Liberanosamalo
Guest
ML561, the cancerous uterus scenario is covered by the principle of double effect. Removing the cancerous uterus is the intent. The death of the child (at that time, obviously, prenatal care and the ability to save the baby was not what it may have been now even if the child had been several weeks older.) was an unintended secondary effect.
Of course the church cares about the life of the mother. But it does also recognize the heroism of women who lay down their lives for their child.
Doctors are not infallible. Sometimes they make dire predictions and they are wrong. I know of too many instances where women were urged to abort (to save their own lives) and no one’s life ended up being lost.
As for the 11 year old being pregnant by incest… she will grow up someday and realize that the people who knew better made a decision for her that she was incapable of making. She may end up mourning the loss of that child the rest of her life and not trusting anyone who made her a party to that decision. She’s already been victimized by an adult she should have trusted. If it were me, I’d spend the rest of my life never trusting anyone. 11 year olds aren’t completely aware of what’s going on in their lives and long-term consequences and implications. Think of something that happened in your own lives at 11 and how you thought of it then, and how you look back at it now as an adult.
Not knowing someone’s medical history and why decisions are made…and why a woman can’t have one child with spina bifida but can carry three subsequent pregnancies to term… I won’t make any comments on that.
Again, I know adults who had spina bifida. Who are glad the world didn’t end their lives.
When the death of a human being is seen as the answer to a problem, chances are, eventually none of us will be safe.
Of course the church cares about the life of the mother. But it does also recognize the heroism of women who lay down their lives for their child.
Doctors are not infallible. Sometimes they make dire predictions and they are wrong. I know of too many instances where women were urged to abort (to save their own lives) and no one’s life ended up being lost.
As for the 11 year old being pregnant by incest… she will grow up someday and realize that the people who knew better made a decision for her that she was incapable of making. She may end up mourning the loss of that child the rest of her life and not trusting anyone who made her a party to that decision. She’s already been victimized by an adult she should have trusted. If it were me, I’d spend the rest of my life never trusting anyone. 11 year olds aren’t completely aware of what’s going on in their lives and long-term consequences and implications. Think of something that happened in your own lives at 11 and how you thought of it then, and how you look back at it now as an adult.
Not knowing someone’s medical history and why decisions are made…and why a woman can’t have one child with spina bifida but can carry three subsequent pregnancies to term… I won’t make any comments on that.
Again, I know adults who had spina bifida. Who are glad the world didn’t end their lives.
When the death of a human being is seen as the answer to a problem, chances are, eventually none of us will be safe.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
That is a different topic but I’d like to address your post briefly. To my understanding of Catholic moral teachings, your friend’s decision to have a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer was a morally acceptable choice.
Sad situation indeed. Surgery to remove a diseased uterus in order to save the woman’s live is not a direct assault upon the child with the intention of killing the child. Abortion is. Your friend’s surgery had the unintended secondary effect of the death of her unborn child, but that was not the goal. Your friend and the surgeon were not directly and intentionally killing the child in her diseased womb.
Note the story of St. Gianna Molla. St. Gianna post-poned cancer treatment because of pregnancy and she later died. Post-poning treatment at the risk of her own life that demonstrated HEROIC virtue that went above and beyond what is neccesary.
All life has value–both mother and child.
- Status