Abortion question

[marineboy]

is it acceptable to have an “abortion” if the mother’s life is in danger as long as the INTENTION is to save the life of the mother and not to abort the baby?? (the baby dies in the process byt the intention was to save the mother’s life)—is this acceptable ??? thanks !!

 

[1ke]

marineboy:

is it acceptable to have an “abortion” if the mother’s life is in danger as long as the INTENTION is to save the life of the mother and not to abort the baby?? (the baby dies in the process byt the intention was to save the mother’s life)—is this acceptable ??? thanks !!

By definition an abortion is the direct killing of the child-- so the death of the child IS intended.

If, on the other hand, you are doing some sort of medical procedure to save the mother AND baby and the baby dies as a result then THAT is an unintended consequence.

So, as you have phrased the question, the answer is NO.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

marineboy:

is it acceptable to have an “abortion” if the mother’s life is in danger as long as the INTENTION is to save the life of the mother and not to abort the baby?? (the baby dies in the process byt the intention was to save the mother’s life)—is this acceptable ??? thanks !!

Abortion is never, ever morally permissible. The only situation that comes up is when an embryo is emplanted in the woman’s fallopian tube. This is called and ectopic pregnancy. The baby cannot survive, and the mother’s life is in jeopardy. The surgery required to save the mother’s life inadvertantly kills the baby. But, since the intention is to correct a life threatening condition in the mother and not to kill the baby, it is morally permissible.

 

[DailyBread]

I agree with both statements earlier written. Also, in the case of a pregnant woman needing a hysterectomy or chemotherapy that puts the life of the baby in jeopardy, could be morally acceptable. But any procedure which acts directly to harm the baby is not morally permissible even if the life of the mother would be saved. The ends do not justify the means. The doctrine of double effect needs to be employed here. But let us not forget the heroes who showed greatest love by laying down their lives for others just as Christ did for us especially Blessed Gianna Beretta Molla: priestsforlife.org/testimony/giannamolla.html

 

[StratusRose]

DailyBread:

I agree with both statements earlier written. Also, in the case of a pregnant woman needing a hysterectomy or chemotherapy that puts the life of the baby in jeopardy, could be morally acceptable. But any procedure which acts directly to harm the baby is not morally permissible even if the life of the mother would be saved. The ends do not justify the means. The doctrine of double effect needs to be employed here. But let us not forget the heroes who showed greatest love by laying down their lives for others just as Christ did for us especially Blessed Gianna Beretta Molla: priestsforlife.org/testimony/giannamolla.html

I think you mean** SAINT** Gianna Beretta Molla!

 

[RuffinIt]

Scott_Lafrance:

The only situation that comes up is when an embryo is emplanted in the woman’s fallopian tube. This is called and ectopic pregnancy. The baby cannot survive, and the mother’s life is in jeopardy. The surgery required to save the mother’s life inadvertantly kills the baby. But, since the intention is to correct a life threatening condition in the mother and not to kill the baby, it is morally permissible.

They have another option now for ectopic pregnancies. If caught early enough, you can get a shot of methotexate, which will end the pregnancy. It is less stressful on the mother since it does not require surgery and it leaves you more fertile as your tubes are not cut. The baby cannot survive in the tubes, and there have been times where the doctor has tried to move the baby and save it, but it has never been successful. And if the baby grows in the tubes and the tubes rupture (which will happen if let go), the mother’s life is in serious danger.

How does the Catholic church feel about getting the shot for an ecoptic pregnancy?

 

[stbruno]

As an ob nurse for nearly 25 years, never has an ectopic pregnancy resulted in a live birth. The woman needs surgical intervention in all cases. I work in a Catholic hospital and we do the intervention all the time without any problem of conscience. In all cases, the woman in crisis when the surgery is performed.

 

[fix]

RuffinIt:

They have another option now for ectopic pregnancies. If caught early enough, you can get a shot of methotexate, which will end the pregnancy. It is less stressful on the mother since it does not require surgery and it leaves you more fertile as your tubes are not cut. The baby cannot survive in the tubes, and there have been times where the doctor has tried to move the baby and save it, but it has never been successful. And if the baby grows in the tubes and the tubes rupture (which will happen if let go), the mother’s life is in serious danger.

How does the Catholic church feel about getting the shot for an ecoptic pregnancy?

A good question I have never seen answered. I would think if the intention is death of the baby it would be illicit.

 

[1ke]

RuffinIt:

They have another option now for ectopic pregnancies. If caught early enough, you can get a shot of methotexate, which will end the pregnancy. It is less stressful on the mother since it does not require surgery and it leaves you more fertile as your tubes are not cut. The baby cannot survive in the tubes, and there have been times where the doctor has tried to move the baby and save it, but it has never been successful. And if the baby grows in the tubes and the tubes rupture (which will happen if let go), the mother’s life is in serious danger.

How does the Catholic church feel about getting the shot for an ecoptic pregnancy?

What you describe is a chemical abortion, and no the Church does not support this procedure. The removal of the tube/diseased portion of the tube is not an abortion and is licit.

 

[DJgang]

marineboy:

is it acceptable to have an “abortion” if the mother’s life is in danger as long as the INTENTION is to save the life of the mother and not to abort the baby?? (the baby dies in the process byt the intention was to save the mother’s life)—is this acceptable ??? thanks !!

I’m confused…are you trying to save both lives? In that case…your “situation” is not even an abortion.