Abortion question

[Mark1970]

I work with someone who is a Muslim, he made a comment about abortion I couldn’t answer at the time, just wondering what other people think. He said that Islam allows abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. He also commented: “If any person were faced with their mother - when pregnant with them - dying of an illness, or the person themself being aborted, where there was no third option, all reasonable people would prefer to have been aborted rather than see their mother die of the illness. Everyone would prefer to die in place of their mother.”

I know that we as Catholics believe that abortion is always a sin, but how do you deal the argument, who dies - you or your mother?

 

[cena]

I work with someone who is a Muslim, he made a comment about abortion I couldn’t answer at the time, just wondering what other people think. He said that Islam allows abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. He also commented: “If any person were faced with their mother - when pregnant with them - dying of an illness, or the person themself being aborted, where there was no third option, all reasonable people would prefer to have been aborted rather than see their mother die of the illness. Everyone would prefer to die in place of their mother.”

I know that we as Catholics believe that abortion is always a sin, but how do you deal the argument, who dies - you or your mother?

If she is ill and takes medicine that as a side effect kills the fetus, that is not an abortion. It indirectly dies. If a condition arises that puts the mother in danger where a method like early labor takes place and the fetus dies from natural causes that is not an abortion. An abortion is direct and intentional. Look up the teaching on double effect

 

[bmonk]

It may be that people would prefer to die rather than see their mothers die–but to make that choice for the unborn child is presumption.

We could also reverse the argument: Most mothers would prefer to die than to see their child die, if given the chance. Does that not mean that we should try to preserve the life of the infant even if the mother will die as a result? The difference here is, of course, in the large majority of cases, the mother is able to choose for herself, while the unborn child, of course, cannot. So we don’t need to presume the mother will offer to die to save her child–we can ask and find out. But we cannot ask the unborn to make that same choice, and so it would be wrong to inflict it on the child.

 

[1ke]

I work with someone who is a Muslim, he made a comment about abortion I couldn’t answer at the time, just wondering what other people think. He said that Islam allows abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. He also commented: “If any person were faced with their mother - when pregnant with them - dying of an illness, or the person themself being aborted, where there was no third option, all reasonable people would prefer to have been aborted rather than see their mother die of the illness. Everyone would prefer to die in place of their mother.”

This is a logical fallacy. It is not based on any fact or moral precept, but on his opinion.

I know that we as Catholics believe that abortion is always a sin, but how do you deal the argument, who dies - you or your mother?

The Church teaches that all people have inherent dignity. From babies in the womb to the old and infirm. We may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

When a woman is pregnant, the doctor has two patients and his duty is to work to save both of them.

We may NEVER kill the child. However, there are time when the child might die as a result of treatment for the mother. That is neither the desired outcome, nor the purpose of the treatment. It may be an unavoidable secondary consequence. It is not abortion to treat both patients, even if one has little chance of survival.

The mother might choose heroic virtue in delaying treatment until after her child is born, even if it may result in their own death. We call those people saints. Gianna Molla is one of them.

Because, to turn his question around, “What mother would choose herself over her own child?”

 

[cena]

I work with someone who is a Muslim, he made a comment about abortion I couldn’t answer at the time, just wondering what other people think. He said that Islam allows abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. He also commented: “If any person were faced with their mother - when pregnant with them - dying of an illness, or the person themself being aborted, where there was no third option, all reasonable people would prefer to have been aborted rather than see their mother die of the illness. Everyone would prefer to die in place of their mother.”

I know that we as Catholics believe that abortion is always a sin, but how do you deal the argument, who dies - you or your mother?

If she is ill and takes medicine that as a side effect kills the fetus, that is not an abortion. It indirectly dies. If a condition arises that puts the mother in danger where a method like early labor takes place and the fetus dies from natural causes that is not an abortion. An abortion is direct and intentional. Look up the teaching on double effect

 

[Mark1970]

If she is ill and takes medicine that as a side effect kills the fetus, that is not an abortion. It indirectly dies. If a condition arises that puts the mother in danger where a method like early labor takes place and the fetus dies from natural causes that is not an abortion. An abortion is direct and intentional. Look up the teaching on double effect

His argument wasn’t about the principle of double effect - which I already know about by the way - where the abortion is the indirect result of medication. He was talking about the mother deliberately choosing to go to the abortion clinic and have the abortion. His argument was that you, Cena, would now freely choose to have been directly aborted than for your mother to have died of a terminal illness in order for you to be born and survive. He seemed to be assuming that any right minded person would feel that way and so abortion was acceptable in that specific situation.

 

[cena]

His argument wasn’t about the principle of double effect - which I already know about by the way - where the abortion is the indirect result of medication. He was talking about the mother deliberately choosing to go to the abortion clinic and have the abortion. His argument was that you, Cena, would now freely choose to have been directly aborted than for your mother to have died of a terminal illness in order for you to be born and survive. He seemed to be assuming that any right minded person would feel that way and so abortion was acceptable in that specific situation.

The founder of Guttmacher institute, a close company to planned parenthood, said there is no scenario where abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life as there are other options. Abortion would not cure her illness, and if the fetus or embryo needs to be removed there are other ways than abortion

I don’t know how to full explain double effect, that’s why I said that, but it’s good you already know it

 

[GregorysArmy]

The founder of Guttmacher institute, a close company to planned parenthood, said there is no scenario where abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life as there are other options. Abortion would not cure her illness, and if the fetus or embryo needs to be removed there are other ways than abortion

I don’t know how to full explain double effect, that’s why I said that, but it’s good you already know it

A person close to me had an ectopic pregnancy. This is where the baby implants in a fallopian tube. This is a leading cause of death during pregnancy, especially in poor countries. The tube ends up rupturing and the mother bleeds to death internally. My person had to have surgery to remove the baby and was told there was no possible way to save the child. A relative also had an ectopic pregnancy and was given chemotherapy drugs to stop the baby’s growth and cause miscarriage. Again, there was no possible way to save the child and if left in the tube, would cause mother’s death as well. While I would not called these cases an abortion, how do you define the difference?

 

[cena]

A person close to me had an ectopic pregnancy. This is where the baby implants in a fallopian tube. This is a leading cause of death during pregnancy, especially in poor countries. The tube ends up rupturing and the mother bleeds to death internally. My person had to have surgery to remove the baby and was told there was no possible way to save the child. A relative also had an ectopic pregnancy and was given chemotherapy drugs to stop the baby’s growth and cause miscarriage. Again, there was no possible way to save the child and if left in the tube, would cause mother’s death as well. While I would not called these cases an abortion, how do you define the difference?

Direct and intentional killing the fetus or embryo. In those scenarios they were not trying to kill the fetus (like if it was developed enough and the mother had to go into labor early they would put the infant in an incubator to try to save him/her). Removing the fetus to save the mother’s life and it dying of natural causes is not an abortion. In the cases of it being in the tube they can remove the tube and that isn’t an abortion. Catholic pro life websites explain it a lot better than I do, if you wanted more information.

 

[Robyn_p]

It may be that people would prefer to die rather than see their mothers die–but to make that choice for the unborn child is presumption.

We could also reverse the argument: Most mothers would prefer to die than to see their child die, if given the chance. Does that not mean that we should try to preserve the life of the infant even if the mother will die as a result? The difference here is, of course, in the large majority of cases, the mother is able to choose for herself, while the unborn child, of course, cannot. So we don’t need to presume the mother will offer to die to save her child–we can ask and find out. But we cannot ask the unborn to make that same choice, and so it would be wrong to inflict it on the child.

Exactly.

 

[Nelka]

It may be that people would prefer to die rather than see their mothers die–but to make that choice for the unborn child is presumption.

We could also reverse the argument: Most mothers would prefer to die than to see their child die, if given the chance. Does that not mean that we should try to preserve the life of the infant even if the mother will die as a result? The difference here is, of course, in the large majority of cases, the mother is able to choose for herself, while the unborn child, of course, cannot. So we don’t need to presume the mother will offer to die to save her child–we can ask and find out. But we cannot ask the unborn to make that same choice, and so it would be wrong to inflict it on the child.

Very well put.

 

[friardchips]

All people concerned about abortion-related topics could do with reading ‘The Hand of God’, by Bernard Nathanson. This will fill any holes in people’s knowledge.

 

[Rau]

I work with someone who is a Muslim, he made a comment about abortion I couldn’t answer at the time, just wondering what other people think. He said that Islam allows abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. He also commented: “If any person were faced with their mother - when pregnant with them - dying of an illness, or the person themself being aborted, where there was no third option, all reasonable people would prefer to have been aborted rather than see their mother die of the illness. Everyone would prefer to die in place of their mother.”

I know that we as Catholics believe that abortion is always a sin, but how do you deal the argument, who dies - you or your mother?

If the child were capable of self-sacrifice, it may be licit for him/her to choose it for the sake of the mother. It is not licit for someone else to make the decision to sacrifice another.

[Is this not akin to the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his colleagues from the explosion? We can’t throw the soldier to save ourselves.]

Your friend’s argument seems terribly flawed.

 

[Rau]

A person close to me had an ectopic pregnancy. This is where the baby implants in a fallopian tube. This is a leading cause of death during pregnancy, especially in poor countries. The tube ends up rupturing and the mother bleeds to death internally. My person had to have surgery to remove the baby and was told there was no possible way to save the child. A relative also had an ectopic pregnancy and was given chemotherapy drugs to stop the baby’s growth and cause miscarriage. Again, there was no possible way to save the child and if left in the tube, would cause mother’s death as well. While I would not called these cases an abortion, how do you define the difference?

The often discussed medical treatments for ectopic pregnancy are:

1. Inject a chemical which kills the child, leading to mother’s medical situation resolving;
2. Surgically remove the child from the tube (Salpingostomy) ;
3. Surgically remove the tubal section (Salpingectomy);

The generally accepted assessment of these acts against Catholic moral principles concludes that:
(1) is immoral - because the child is directly attacked (poisoned).
(2) is immoral - because the child is attacked (surgically “removed”).
(3) is moral - the treatment is directed at the mother, is the minimum treatment the mother requires (prevent tube rupture), and it does not directly target the child. The death of the child is certain (with current technology) but not directly sought.

The language of “abortion” can be ambiguous. Eg. I might call (1) and (2) abortions, and (3) not an abortion, whereas others (sharing my understanding of morality) might refer to (3) as an “indirect abortion” (which is still moral).

 

[Mark1970]

If the child were capable of self-sacrifice, it may be licit for him/her to choose it for the sake of the mother. It is not licit for someone else to make the decision to sacrifice another.

[Is this not akin to the soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save his colleagues from the explosion? We can’t throw the soldier to save ourselves.]

Your friend’s argument seems terribly flawed.

It is, but he’s also very difficult to convince that he’s wrong. He’s also the type who will continue arguing his view until you accept that he is correct. Arguing with him becomes akin to the proverbial beating your head against a brick wall.