Abortion question

[ProudCatholicAl]

Should abortion be allowed if the mother has a heart problem and when she gives birth both her and the baby would die? Would it make sense to have an abortion so at least the mother would live? [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[1ke]

We may never do evil. It is evil to kill babies. Abortion is always a moral evil.

In such a case, the doctor has two patients to treat.

People often present the false dichotomy of “mother or child”.

 

[Delaine75]

Absolutely not. There is never a reason to kill an innocent life.

 

[MichaelHowling]

Delaine.

To piggyback on the last couple posters…

Abortion is a willful and direct killing of an innocent life…NEVER can be justified. If however, as a direct result of doing what we can to help the mother survive the baby dies as a side effect…we did not intentionally kill a baby.

This includes trying to work around the baby to spare it while helping mom, trying to give the baby extra nutrition and such before the procedure to save mom to give baby best chances, giving the baby medical treatment after/during saving mom to attempt to spare his life…you’ll never see an abortionist do these things…because their will is to see the death of the baby.

But to be clear…the church does not have an issue with a doctor trying to save the mother…but the church does take issue of the doctor attempted to kill a baby in the process on purpose.

God bless

 

[ChibiViolet]

I’ve often had this kind of hypothetical situation come to mind and now I have the answer. Thank you 1ke.

 

[Christy_Beth]

If the mother has a heart problem, then she should be all the more careful about not becoming pregnant in the first place. Any health problem in a woman needs a closer look if she’s planning on having a baby. Of course, a talk with a doctor would be advisable. This would also apply to if the woman is taking regular medication for a health problem. Myself, once I asked about this in a discussion with a nurse practicioneer who was also a Catholic. The question was, if I were to meet “Mr. Right” and wanted more children, knowing my “health” (mental with plenty of medication), what would she suggest. She said that I should forget having any more children because I’d have to go off many of my meds, and that wouldn’t be good for me.

 

[Spider42]

It should be noted that the question of maternal health was something the Church pondered for a very long time too.

One of the most quoted of early Christian writers on abortion is Tertullian. He has two passages from his treatise on the soul that is standard fare on almost every Catholic pro-life leaning web site. But what can get missed is that the passages are connected. In between them is a gruesome description of a primitive partial birth abortion for medicinal reasons which he describes as an “inarguably just” “necessary cruelty”.

As recently as 1869, the Vatican refused to express an opinion on the matter, passing the question on to theologians. The matter was finally settled by Papal Bull in 1889, but Rome was still clarifying well into the 20th century. For example, Pope Pius XII addressed midwives on the question of medicinal abortions in 1951.

The teaching on direct abortions always being a grave moral disorder became infallible in 1995, by virtue of the universal agreement of the magisterium. Blessed John Paul noted this in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae.

My point is not that the Church is wrong, my point is that the Church has only been teaching clearly on the matter of abortions for maternal health for a short time. And it is still morally very difficult. It is easy to say ‘she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant’ or ‘she should just die’ when, say, it isn’t a loved one dear to us.

So, when Catholics do disregard this teaching, and they do a fairly high percentage of the time in medically high risk situations, we should answer with love and compassion, not self rightous disapproval.

Also, we need to be aware of possibilties for double effect. Take a more charitable hypothetical than some above. Say that the heart defect was found via the normal pregnancy medical process or that pregnancy occured in spite of NFP. At this point there are two patients in mortal peril.

Even if there is a desire to save the baby at any cost (and this occurs often as well), some of the treatments for a severe heart patient can have life threatening risks for the developing fetus. Again, if the worst occurs, it isn’t really our place to say ‘she shouldn’t have had the surgery…’, etc. Our place is prayers, compassion, and love.

Pax Christi

 

[StarOfTheSea83]

It should be noted that the question of maternal health was something the Church pondered for a very long time too.

One of the most quoted of early Christian writers on abortion is Tertullian. He has two passages from his treatise on the soul that is standard fare on almost every Catholic pro-life leaning web site. But what can get missed is that the passages are connected. In between them is a gruesome description of a primitive partial birth abortion for medicinal reasons which he describes as an “inarguably just” “necessary cruelty”.

As recently as 1869, the Vatican refused to express an opinion on the matter, passing the question on to theologians. The matter was finally settled by Papal Bull in 1889, but Rome was still clarifying well into the 20th century. For example, Pope Pius XII addressed midwives on the question of medicinal abortions in 1951.

The teaching on direct abortions always being a grave moral disorder became infallible in 1995, by virtue of the universal agreement of the magisterium. Blessed John Paul noted this in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae.

My point is not that the Church is wrong, my point is that the Church has only been teaching clearly on the matter of abortions for maternal health for a short time. And it is still morally very difficult. It is easy to say ‘she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant’ or ‘she should just die’ when, say, it isn’t a loved one dear to us.

So, when Catholics do disregard this teaching, and they do a fairly high percentage of the time in medically high risk situations, we should answer with love and compassion, not self rightous disapproval.

Also, we need to be aware of possibilties for double effect. Take a more charitable hypothetical than some above. Say that the heart defect was found via the normal pregnancy medical process or that pregnancy occured in spite of NFP. At this point there are two patients in mortal peril.

Even if there is a desire to save the baby at any cost (and this occurs often as well), some of the treatments for a severe heart patient can have life threatening risks for the developing fetus. Again, if the worst occurs, it isn’t really our place to say ‘she shouldn’t have had the surgery…’, etc. Our place is prayers, compassion, and love.

Pax Christi

Are you claiming that the Catholic Church has ever condoned abortion in its history? From everything I’ve read, I can’t find a single instance where the Catholic Church condoned abortion. Everything I’ve read demonstrates that the Catholic Church has been absolutely opposed to abortion in any form whatsoever, from its very beginning.
If you can find a statement from the Catholic Church supporting abortion at any time in history, I’d be very interested to see it.
Peace and God bless.

 

[tjones80]

Should abortion be allowed if the mother has a heart problem and when she gives birth both her and the baby would die? Would it make sense to have an abortion so at least the mother would live? [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Well under US law the woman can choose abortion if her life is in danger at anytime. But if a heart problem prevents natural child birth then the doctor can perform a c section on the patient.