Abortion question

[georgemiller]

In the 50’s and 60’s did the Catholic Church ever teach that a woman could elect to have an abortion if her life was in danger because of pregancy? If during dilevery for example the doctor says I can only save the mother or the baby, what choice does the mother have on this situation.

 

[1ke]

In the 50’s and 60’s did the Catholic Church ever teach that a woman could elect to have an abortion if her life was in danger because of pregancy?

Not in the 1950s, the 1850s, the 1450s or the 150s. Not ever.

I don’t really even understand why this is a question at all.

If during dilevery for example the doctor says I can only save the mother or the baby, what choice does the mother have on this situation.

The doctor has two patients. He is obligated to do his best to save both. He may not kill either one.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

If during delivery, for example, the doctor says I can only save the mother or the baby, what choice does the mother have on this situation.

What scenario exactly are you imagining here? Do you think that such a thing has ever happened?

 

[judynurse]

I think if you look up the subject in the Canon Law, a woman may abort a baby if she has other children and would die if she carried the pregnancy, as her death would leave her children without a mother. Same thing during delivery. I read about it because I worked as a Nurse, and needed to know the Law of the Church.

However, a Catholic Nurse may not assist in a voluntary (unnecessary) abortion. I was told to assist in an abortion (assigned by my Supervisor at the Hospital) and refused for reasons of Faith/Religion. I was fired for this. This has changed now in many Hospitals, and a Nurse has the right to refuse for moral reasons and cannot be fired for refusal.

However, the Mother may choose to save the baby, even though there is a 90%+ chance that she will die in order to save the baby.

 

[stephe1987]

In the case of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, it is not a direct abortion. It is removing a diseased organ and as an unintended consequence causes the unborn child to die. Direct abortion is not allowed, as both mother and child are human persons made in the image of God.

The cases where the woman would die if the pregnancy is continued are very rare, especially as medicine advances. The woman can be monitored, and can even be forced into early labor if necessary. Babies are surviving outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages of development. The hardest cases are early stages where the baby cannot survive outside his/her mother’s womb. In those cases, either the baby dies or they both die. Very sad. But at least it’s extremely rare nowadays.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Direct abortion is never permissible, but according to mainstream Catholic moral theology, it *might *be permissible to perform surgery which would result in the death of the embryo as an unintended effect, e.g. removal of a felopian tube to save the mother’s life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. I quote from Modern Catholic Dictionary:

DOUBLE EFFECT

The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions: 1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences; 2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good; 3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act; 4. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent. All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.

See also: A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies (CUF article)

 

[Starrsmother]

The church has always believed in the sanctity of life–in every century. What you need to remember, however, is that in the '50’s and '60’s, the church’s position on abortion and the government’s were basically the same. Abortion was illegal and remained so in the USA until the Roe vs Wade decision changed the law. So it was more or less a moot point back then. As soon as abortion became legal, the church became more public in its stand–the stand that it had always had. There are very few cases outside of a TV drama series that I can imagine where the doc would have to look at the Dad and say “It’s the baby or your wife–so choose one!” (And, I am a Catholic nurse practitioner in this line of work.) It makes for interesting philosophical discussion but is not a frequent occurrence by any means. On the off chance it did–and it is a very off chance-- it is perfectly legitimate to save the life of the mother.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I think if you look up the subject in the Canon Law, a woman may abort a baby if she has other children and would die if she carried the pregnancy, as her death would leave her children without a mother. Same thing during delivery. I read about it because I worked as a Nurse, and needed to know the Law of the Church.

I am afraid that you are mistaken about this. In the Code of Canon Law on the Vatican website, abortion is mentioned 4 times, all in connection with the automatic excommunication of anyone procuring a completed abortion. Direct abortion is always forbidden by the Church.

 

[judynurse]

Does the Canon Law state that a Mother, whom the Medical Doctors say will die if she carries the baby full term, will certainly not survive, must therefore carry the baby, even if she has several small children already living? I’m thinking of the Saint in Italy, who was a Doctor, her husband was a Doctor, she had (I think) 2 or 3 small children and she had cancer of the uterus, and even her Priest told her to have the baby, and the cancer removed? She chose to keep carrying the baby, delivered a baby girl alive, then died within a few days, still with the cancer.
This left the husband with several small children & a newborn with no mother. She was canonized a few years ago for sacrificing her life in the hope the child would live, which in this case, the infant did.

What about a case such as this?

By the way, as a Nurse, I fortunately never had a case where it was a choice of abortion or death for the Mother, and probably the child as well. The only one which came close was a young woman who had lost several children, was 6 months pregnant and in labor. She and her husband chose a C-Section, as the infant was in distress and would die if the labor continued. Both Mother and child survived, thank God. Doctors were unable to stop the labor, and the babys’ heartbeat was irregular and weakening, so it was an emergency C-Section or the child would die.

Due to seeing a number of stillborn babies, and because so many Hospitals were doing abortions in the 90’s when I was working Labor & Delivery, I went into Geriatrics and Hospice Nursing.

to Starrsmother: Is it legitimate by CHURCH law, in a case where only one can be saved, to choose to save the mother, particularly if she has other children to be raised?

 

[Petaro]

Direct abortion is never permissible, but according to mainstream Catholic moral theology, it *might *be permissible to perform surgery which would result in the death of the embryo as an unintended effect, e.g. removal of a felopian tube to save the mother’s life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. I quote from Modern Catholic Dictionary:

DOUBLE EFFECT

The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions: 1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences; 2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good; 3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act; 4. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent. All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.

See also: A Catholic Approach to Tubal Pregnancies (CUF article)

A wise and true statement. Wonderful post!

 

[Starrsmother]

Judy nurse–In the scenario you describe where a pregnant woman is diagnosed with uterine cancer and in order to save her life she must have an immediate hysterectomy–thus terminating an unviable as yet pregnancy–it is certainly NOT a sin for the woman to have the hyst. The Catholic church is not unreasonable nor is it the enemy of women as I’m certain you know too.This situation you describe is what the church refers to as an indirect abortion and is no sin–no matter what anyone tells you. Th differentiation is subtle–but the bottom line is in the purpose of the abortion being done. In your case exam, the primary purpose and intent is to remove a gravely diseased uterus and save a woman’s life. The death of the fetus is a sad, but necessary secondary result of the uterus being removed. And this, by the way, certainly does occur from time to time–or a variation of it–as you know since you are a nurse. I am always happy and honored to run into a Catholic nurse on this or any site I belong to. I am a Catholic nurse practitioner and certified nurse midwife and it always makes me feel less alone out there if you know what I mean. The bigger moral querries I usually run into aren’t usually whether to save the mom or baby in case of an emergency situation or cancer, but things like the use of methotrexate for ending an ectopic pregnancy for instance. Since I prescribe, I’ve had to discuss and defend my position on this. I think I’m glad I’m not a surgeon-- LOL!

 

[Michael57]

Does the Canon Law state that a Mother, whom the Medical Doctors say will die if she carries the baby full term, will certainly not survive, must therefore carry the baby, even if she has several small children already living? I’m thinking of the Saint in Italy, who was a Doctor, her husband was a Doctor, she had (I think) 2 or 3 small children and she had cancer of the uterus, and even her Priest told her to have the baby, and the cancer removed? She chose to keep carrying the baby, delivered a baby girl alive, then died within a few days, still with the cancer.
This left the husband with several small children & a newborn with no mother. She was canonized a few years ago for sacrificing her life in the hope the child would live, which in this case, the infant did.

What about a case such as this?

By the way, as a Nurse, I fortunately never had a case where it was a choice of abortion or death for the Mother, and probably the child as well. The only one which came close was a young woman who had lost several children, was 6 months pregnant and in labor. She and her husband chose a C-Section, as the infant was in distress and would die if the labor continued. Both Mother and child survived, thank God. Doctors were unable to stop the labor, and the babys’ heartbeat was irregular and weakening, so it was an emergency C-Section or the child would die.

Due to seeing a number of stillborn babies, and because so many Hospitals were doing abortions in the 90’s when I was working Labor & Delivery, I went into Geriatrics and Hospice Nursing.

to Starrsmother: Is it legitimate by CHURCH law, in a case where only one can be saved, to choose to save the mother, particularly if she has other children to be raised?

Saint Gianna Beretta Molla…her story here LINK

Direct abortion is not permitted in the Catholic Faith.

 

[Starrsmother]

Which is why I pointed out that in the case of a woman with uterine cancer who was pregnant with a fetus of a nonviable age, that it is not a sin in the eyes of the church to remove the diseased uterus— even though it results secondarily and sadly, in the termination of the pregnancy.

 

[1ke]

I think if you look up the subject in the Canon Law, a woman may abort a baby if she has other children and would die if she carried the pregnancy, as her death would leave her children without a mother. Same thing during delivery.

Uh. I have no words for this other than it is completely untrue.

I read about it because I worked as a Nurse, and needed to know the Law of the Church.

And I have a bridge for sale.

IHowever, a Catholic Nurse may not assist in a voluntary (unnecessary) abortion

A Catholic nurse may not assist in any abortion, ever.

 

[1ke]

Does the Canon Law state that a Mother, whom the Medical Doctors say will die if she carries the baby full term, will certainly not survive, must therefore carry the baby, even if she has several small children already living?

I think you have some serious misconceptions about what Canon Law is.

No it does not say you can kill babies.

I I’m thinking of the Saint in Italy, who was a Doctor, her husband was a Doctor, she had (I think) 2 or 3 small children and she had cancer of the uterus, and even her Priest told her to have the baby, and the cancer removed? She chose to keep carrying the baby, delivered a baby girl alive, then died within a few days, still with the cancer.
This left the husband with several small children & a newborn with no mother. She was canonized a few years ago for sacrificing her life in the hope the child would live, which in this case, the infant did.

What about a case such as this?

What the doctors were proposing was not an abortion.

IIs it legitimate by CHURCH law, in a case where only one can be saved, to choose to save the mother, particularly if she has other children to be raised?

Again, the doctor has two patients. He should do all he can to save both. He may not KILL either one. If one dies while trying to save both, that is unfortunate but not abortion.

 

[georgemiller]

So, the question again is, if unusual circumstances dictate that clearly a doctor can only save one life, either the mother or the baby, what choices are available to the doctor?

 

[1ke]

So, the question again is, if unusual circumstances dictate that clearly a doctor can only save one life, either the mother or the baby, what choices are available to the doctor?

And again the answer is that it is his solemn duty to do all he can for both patients. So his choice is to take whatever legitimate medical steps he can in the moment for both, for example emergency C section, bed rest, medicatlon, emergency surgery, etc.

What he cannot do is kill either one.

If he is trying to save both and one dies, that is not his fault.

Abortion is never a moral option, so that one is off the table for the doctor, and the Church has never had a teaching that one could perform an abortion in any situation.

 

[Sky_River]

I have a question about abortion.

What if a pregnancy endangers both the life of the woman and the fetus? In that situation, would it be sinful for the woman to have an abortion? The fetus wouldn’t survive either way, but at least if she has an abortion, she can still live.

 

[jmcrae]

In the 50’s and 60’s did the Catholic Church ever teach that a woman could elect to have an abortion if her life was in danger because of pregancy? If during dilevery for example the doctor says I can only save the mother or the baby, what choice does the mother have on this situation.

In those days it would not have been legal in most places to abort a baby under any circumstances. In the 1970s abortion became legal so that doctors could kill unborn babies rather than wait for them to die, in situations where they were going to die anyway.

Very few people anticipated that repealing the abortion law would lead to the deaths of millions of perfectly healthy children each year, merely because the timing of their conception was inconvenient to their mothers.

 

[jmcrae]

I have a question about abortion.

What if a pregnancy endangers both the life of the woman and the fetus? In that situation, would it be sinful for the woman to have an abortion? The fetus wouldn’t survive either way, but at least if she has an abortion, she can still live.

If the child dies during an operation or other medical procedure (for example, chemotherapy or radiation therapy) that is intended to save the mother’s life, that isn’t considered an “abortion” even if the child’s death is considered a likely consequence of the procedure at the time.

However, it would always be wrong to perform an abortion separately from giving life-saving treatment to the mother. To directly kill the child would be murder, but to allow the child to die while saving the mother’s life in a case where it’s simply not possible to save both lives at the same time is not a sin - it is a predictable but unavoidable accidental death.

Ideally, doctors would do everything possible to save both lives - but when that’s not possible, the priority is the mother’s life.