abortion question

[jjsc3]

My wife recently read an article (Self magazine or some other ladies magazine) that was written by a lady who had an abortion because of medical reasons. This lady’s baby was developing without kidneys and there was no amniotic fluid. Since there was no fluid, the baby had no protection in the womb and the weight of this lady’s organs had broken the baby’s arms and crushed it’s face. She was told that without kidneys, the baby would not survive once born, if it even made it full term. Also, the baby would be in severe pain because of the broken bones, and would likely have more broken bones if she continued to carry the baby. The woman chose to have an abortion because she didn’t want the baby to suffer with more injuries in the womb. My wife asked me what we would do if we were in the same situation. A few years ago, my wife had an ectopic pregnancy and we lost the baby as a result of the surgery to save my wife and she was trying to draw parallels between the two. I told her that the loss of our baby was an indirect result of saving her, but the lady in the article directly and intentionally killed her baby. This is a very tough ethical delima and I don’t know what the churches teaching would be in this case. Would they let the baby try to go full term even with no chance of survival and suffering in the womb? Would they induce early to avoid the baby suffering throughout a possible full term pregnancy? My wife says she would have a very hard time carry the baby full term knowing that she was causing pain to the baby. I know very little about childbirth, but could they inject amniotic fluid in her on a regular basis to offer the baby comfort and protection in the womb, deliver, and then have the baby die naturally after birth?

 

[kage_ar]

Without amniotic fluid, the child could not live, would die and would be miscarried from the mother.

Either someone lied to the poor mother in this story, or … something???

 

[mahalia]

without kindeys, the child would have died in utero.
the Church says that even in cases where death is inevitable, we shouldn’t be the ones deciding when the life of the baby ends. it is up to the Lord to decide.
it seems cruel, maybe, but when you think of it a bit deeper, where does one draw the limit?
abortion is murder. even if it’s done with good intentions, to ease someone, it is putting an end to other person’s life.
also, I am sure that all the mothers who are in that situation experience enormous pain because of the situation they are in, but maybe it’s their own pain that drives them to such decisions and not the pain of their child?
I am not trying to judge that woman or any other in the same position, these situations are extremely painful. But we, Christians, have to give the Lord the right to be the master of life, without compromise.
Otherwise, it’s the doctor who decides on the life of that child.

 

[1ke]

In a case such as this, the woman could induce labor with the intent of trying to save the baby. If that was not possible, the baby would die a natural death.

Killing the baby is never a moral option, no matter one’s “intention”.

 

[Jeanne_dArc]

Also, doctors are not always right, my aunt was told that my cousin was going to be a “vegtable” if he even made it to term. They recomended she abort, she didn’t & my cousin ended up being born perfectly normal.

 

[MomaMary8]

If you are any one you know are ever in such a sad situation, please contact a perinatal hospice provider. Here is an example of such a place. They call their work “God’s answer to Late term abortion.”