Abortion OK?????

[1ke]

TarAshly:

if she gets treatment knowing its going to kill the baby is that still an abortion?

what about rape and incest cases?

If someone is seeking medical treatment and the UNINTENDED consequence is the death of the child then, yes, even knowing it might/will kill the baby it is not an abortion. An abortion would be directly killing the child and that is all. For example, chemotheraphy is for cancer. It might unintentionally kill the child (because we don’t yet have the advanced medical knowledge to save both). The intent should always be to try to save both, but if the baby dies, it’s not the intended action. If a woman has cancer and has an abortion, that is different. An abortion does not cure cancer. It merely kills the child, on purpose. That is always wrong.

As far as rape/incest, what is your question? In that case, the woman does not have a medical condition for which she is seeking treatment. This would merely be a case of procured abortion, which would be wrong.

 

[leschornmom]

1ke:

…As far as rape/incest, what is your question? In that case, the woman does not have a medical condition for which she is seeking treatment. This would merely be a case of procured abortion, which would be wrong.

I agree! Why compoud such evil with the evil of a baby being killed? I am lucky to have never been in this kind of situation, and I hope I never will be.

 

[mommi2four]

tkdnick:

I was talking with another Catholic friend last night and I held the position that the Catholic Church is against all forms of abortion no matter what the situation. My friend said while that is mostly true, there are some very rare exceptions. His example was if it is very early in the pregnancy and it is obvious that both the mother and child are going to die if carried to term, then it acceptable to have an abortion. Is this true? I had never heard anything like it before.

Abortion is never ok. There is no excuse for an abortion. I’m not sure where he was getting this information but it is wrong

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Blood Rain:

I think Joan M’s post deserves a second look. She addresses what I believe is the cause of the confusion. At some point someone heard this explanation, and they told some one else while leaving out some important detail, like the difference between removing the embryo while preserving the fallopian tube or removing the embryo along with part or all of the tube. If time isn’t taking to explain the difference clearly and simply there is, unfortunately, a lot of room for misunderstanding.

I had to come back to add that the senario of finding an ectopic pregnancy before rupturing is possible but kind of rare. I wonder how often women have a surgery to save the fallopian tube not knowing it’s a direct abortion.

And I have to say that calling someone who is misinformed an “ignoramous” is quite uncharitable. Stuff like that really frosts my cookies.

 

[1ke]

Blood Rain:

And I have to say that calling someone who is misinformed an “ignoramous” is quite uncharitable. Stuff like that really frosts my cookies.

Joan didn’t use the word ignoramous, I did.

Anyway, sorry if it bothered you. I didn’t use it because the person was misinformed (there is no such thing as a “dumb” question), but rather because they were being purposely obtuse when their friend showed them right in the Catechism what the Church teaches about abortion. So, perhaps “purposely obtuse” would have been a better choice than “ignoramous”.

 

[All4lifetoo]

Blood Rain:

I had to come back to add that the senario of finding an ectopic pregnancy before rupturing is possible but kind of rare. I wonder how often women have a surgery to save the fallopian tube not knowing it’s a direct abortion.

And I have to say that calling someone who is misinformed an “ignoramous” is quite uncharitable. Stuff like that really frosts my cookies.

Several decades ago I read a story in the Lancet about a doctor who was doing surgery on a woman for some reason and he discovered a very early ectopic pregnancy. He claimed to have successfully transplanted the fetus from the fallopian tube to the uterus and claims a successful delivery. It is the only case of its kind that I have every heard of.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

1ke:

Joan didn’t use the word ignoramous, I did.

Anyway, sorry if it bothered you. I didn’t use it because the person was misinformed (there is no such thing as a “dumb” question), but rather because they were being purposely obtuse when their friend showed them right in the Catechism what the Church teaches about abortion. So, perhaps “purposely obtuse” would have been a better choice than “ignoramous”.

I know it wasn’t Joan; I was bringing attention (again) to her post because it focuses on what I believe to be part of the cause of the confusion or misunderstanding on this issue. I agree with what she said.

The reason I have trouble with your name-calling is becsause there is some misunderstanding here. Many posting on this thread say in one way or another that "O! an abortion is always wrong.
Well, is a spontaneous abortion wrong? Of course not. Duh. Stay with me here. And neither is the kind of abortion that removes the fallopian tube along with the embryo. It’s not a direct abortion; the intent is not the kill the embryo. But it’s still called an abortion.

Again, there is a lot of misunderstanding on this aspect of abortion. I’m nowhere near my Catechism but what was quoted below does not clarify what I believe is the problem here.

I have heard a number of times the someone heard the church taught abortion was morally acceptable as long as it was to save the life of the mother. Can you see how this could be easily misinterpreted?

ETA And calling names doesn’t come across as super-charitable either. More importantly, I don’t think it’s a winsome witness. People are watching us you know. And perhaps this person wasn’t being “purposely obtuse” but sticking to something he heard from a “reliable source.” Look, from what I can tell about what the friend said I don’t think he had my senario in mind. But it could have been something like it.