Abortion: the Woman or Child

[NeedImprovement]

(@ JReducation : Thanks Br. JR. Your posts always help me - ).

The words of Venerable Pope John Paul II :

“It is a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and the truth,” the pope said in response to his critics. “You cannot take a vote on the truth.”
.

 

[heart4home]

If there is a medical condition that threatens the life of the mother, the moral thing to do is to postpone intervention until the child is viable. There are times when time will not allow us to wait for viability. In those situations, the attending physician may take whatever actions are necessary to protect the life of the mother, AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT ATTACK THE CHILD. In other words, he must hold the child’s life equally valuable. The loss of the child may be a foreseeable outcome, but not the intended outcome.

Therefore, a physician cannot say that he will abort the child, because it is necessary to save the life of the mother. He does not have that right, nor does the mother, or the father, or the ethics committee. As long as a person is innocent, he has a right to live and his death should come when God decides. In other words, abortion is not a healing procedure, because its intent is to kill one person in order to protect another. The problem with that is that the person whom you’re killing is not an attacker who is threatening you. You may attack an illness, but not an innocent human being.

As the bishops example goes, if the physician finds that a defective organ has to be removed to prevent further damage and that it cannot wait, that is not the same as abortion. Abortion is attacking the child. Removing a tube or a uterus in which there is a living child is not an attack on the child. The intention is to remove an organ that is defective and dangerous. However, one must wait until there is a real danger. One cannot speculate and act on speculation. Obviously, if we remove a uterus or a tube with a child in it, we know that the child is going to die. However, this is not an abortion. Why not? We have not removed the child from his habitat. The death of the child is caused by the removal of the organ, not by a scalpel taken to the child.

Provoking labor prematurely to protect the life of the mother, when we know that the child is not viable is immoral. This is an attack on the child. You’re forcing the child to be expelled. One has a moral duty to desire the good, to do the good in order to achieve the good and to avoid all evil. It is never justifiable to choose the lesser of two evils, because we’re still choosing evil. One must always choose the greatest possible good, even when it means that one cannot completely stop evil.

I hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for taking the time to write such a clear and helpful understanding

 

[catharina]

(@ JReducation : Thanks Br. JR. Your posts always help me - ).

The words of Venerable Pope John Paul II :

“It is a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and the truth,” the pope said in response to his critics. “You cannot take a vote on the truth.”
.

Beautiful quote. Thank you for posting it.

 

[JReducation]

(@ JReducation : Thanks Br. JR. Your posts always help me - ).

The words of Venerable Pope John Paul II :

“It is a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and the truth,” the pope said in response to his critics. “You cannot take a vote on the truth.”
.

Pope Pius X once referred to this as the “Great American apostasy” or was it the “Great American heresy”?

I was one of those two words. The point was that he was not happy with Americans because to use the words of a later pope, Pius XII, “Americans put truth on trial, as if truth could ever be anything else.”

Our incilination to constantly question everything and to come across as if we have greater knowledge than those who teach us the truth has come across as arrogant and at times ignorant to many of our popes.

On this issue of abortion, Pope Benedict, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger once spoke to a group of European student theologians and warned them about the importation of American bio-ethics. He was referring to our brand of ethics that allows a child to be destroyed for some non-existent higher good.

While the Church admires what America has done for its people by way of opportunities to succeed and compete without State interference, she has very serious concerns about how the people of America abuse freedom. I was in Baltimore when the soon to be Bl. John Paul II visited and said to the congregation, with the Vice President in the front row, “America, much has been given to you; therefore, much shall be asked of you.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NeedImprovement]

Because we all love him so much, I thought I would just update this (Blue edit mine) :

…

The words of Blessed Pope John Paul II :

“It is a mistake to apply American democratic procedures to the faith and the truth,” the pope said in response to his critics. “You cannot take a vote on the truth.”
.

 

[ianonavy]

If there is a medical condition that threatens the life of the mother, the moral thing to do is to postpone intervention until the child is viable. There are times when time will not allow us to wait for viability. In those situations, the attending physician may take whatever actions are necessary to protect the life of the mother, AS LONG AS HE DOES NOT ATTACK THE CHILD. In other words, he must hold the child’s life equally valuable. The loss of the child may be a foreseeable outcome, but not the intended outcome.

Therefore, a physician cannot say that he will abort the child, because it is necessary to save the life of the mother. He does not have that right, nor does the mother, or the father, or the ethics committee. As long as a person is innocent, he has a right to live and his death should come when God decides. In other words, abortion is not a healing procedure, because its intent is to kill one person in order to protect another. The problem with that is that the person whom you’re killing is not an attacker who is threatening you. You may attack an illness, but not an innocent human being.

As the bishops example goes, if the physician finds that a defective organ has to be removed to prevent further damage and that it cannot wait, that is not the same as abortion. Abortion is attacking the child. Removing a tube or a uterus in which there is a living child is not an attack on the child. The intention is to remove an organ that is defective and dangerous. However, one must wait until there is a real danger. One cannot speculate and act on speculation. Obviously, if we remove a uterus or a tube with a child in it, we know that the child is going to die. However, this is not an abortion. Why not? We have not removed the child from his habitat. The death of the child is caused by the removal of the organ, not by a scalpel taken to the child.

Provoking labor prematurely to protect the life of the mother, when we know that the child is not viable is immoral. This is an attack on the child. You’re forcing the child to be expelled. One has a moral duty to desire the good, to do the good in order to achieve the good and to avoid all evil. It is never justifiable to choose the lesser of two evils, because we’re still choosing evil. One must always choose the greatest possible good, even when it means that one cannot completely stop evil.

I hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread. I would especially like to thank Br. JR for his contribution, as it has been the most enlightening. All of the posts that have shown non-abortive methods of saving both the mother and the child have been quite eye-opening, and I would like to thank all of you for helping me truly understand the pro-life position. I had not realized that there is always the option of waiting until the child is viable to live outside the mother’s womb in an incubator and save both of them through non-abortive medical procedures.

Again, thank you to everyone.

 

[Rence]

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread. I would especially like to thank Br. JR for his contribution, as it has been the most enlightening. All of the posts that have shown non-abortive methods of saving both the mother and the child have been quite eye-opening, and I would like to thank all of you for helping me truly understand the pro-life position.

Yes, I agree that JR’s posts were the best in explaining the Church’s teachings.

I had not realized that there is always the option of waiting until the child is viable to live outside the mother’s womb in an incubator and save both of them through non-abortive medical procedures. Again, thank you to everyone.

Unfortunately, that’s NOT always an option. But the standard of treatment is always to treat both, and to save both. But that depends on the woman’s health. So, no it’s not always possible.

For example, if she has been diagnosed with uterine cancer, and the doctor finds her to be in immediate danger because of the growth rate or infiltration of the cancer, then she can’t wait and has to have treatment which may include a hysterectomy. Waiting would lead to her death as the cancer spreads uncontrollably. Yeah, she might be able to wait, but if her doctor says, based on his testing, that she can’t wait, then no, she can’t wait. And the Church knows this, which is why the Church doesn’t require a woman to wait until viability if the woman is given such a diagnois coupled with the prognosis. Of course, a woman can wait. But the Church doens’t require it.

If a woman is diagnosed placenta previa, how they treat her depends on how much she’s bleeding and how she’s responding to the treatment for bleeding (like transfusions). Ideally, the standard of care is to wait until the lungs of the fetus are mature, because treating both patients means waiting until the fetus has the best chance for survival. So if the bleeding is under control or the woman can tolerate it, and blood transfusions are effective, treating the woman with corticosteroids to help the lungs of the fetus mature is done. But obviously, if the woman starts bleeding uncontrollably, no, you can’t wait and a casearean is done. Usually you can wait, but no, it’s not always an option. If she can’t wait, then a caesarean is done and the premie is treated in the NICU.

If a woman is diagnosed with placenta abruptio, that means the placenta is separating from the walls of the uterus and causing bleeding. If the condition is mild and the woman isn’t bleeding too badly, they can treat with transfusions and watch and wait while they give her medications to treat her, and mediations to treat the fetus. But if the condition is moderate to severe, an immedate caesarean is done to avoid a hemorrhage from killing the woman (and the fetus). Placenta abruptio is a medical emergency. Usually you can wait, but no, it’s not always an option. Usually it happens in the last trimester, but it does happen earlier. No matter when it happens, it can lead to no other option but immediate caesarean with the premie being treated in the NICU.

So is it always an option to wait? No, not always. As described above. These treatments (early caesarean with transfer of premie to the NICU) happen all the time, in Catholic as well as secular hospitals.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I agree that JR’s posts were the best in explaining the Church’s teachings.

Unfortunately, that’s NOT always an option. But the standard of treatment is always to treat both, and to save both. But that depends on the woman’s health. So, no it’s not always possible.

For example, if she has been diagnosed with uterine cancer, and the doctor finds her to be in immediate danger because of the growth rate or infiltration of the cancer, then she can’t wait and has to have treatment which may include a hysterectomy. Waiting would lead to her death as the cancer spreads uncontrollably. Yeah, she might be able to wait, but if her doctor says, based on his testing, that she can’t wait, then no, she can’t wait. And the Church knows this, which is why the Church doesn’t require a woman to wait until viability if the woman is given such a diagnois coupled with the prognosis. Of course, a woman can wait. But the Church doens’t require it.

If a woman is diagnosed placenta previa, how they treat her depends on how much she’s bleeding and how she’s responding to the treatment for bleeding (like transfusions). Ideally, the standard of care is to wait until the lungs of the fetus are mature, because treating both patients means waiting until the fetus has the best chance for survival. So if the bleeding is under control or the woman can tolerate it, and blood transfusions are effective, treating the woman with corticosteroids to help the lungs of the fetus mature is done. But obviously, if the woman starts bleeding uncontrollably, no, you can’t wait and a casearean is done. Usually you can wait, but no, it’s not always an option. If she can’t wait, then a caesarean is done and the premie is treated in the NICU.

If a woman is diagnosed with placenta abruptio, that means the placenta is separating from the walls of the uterus and causing bleeding. If the condition is mild and the woman isn’t bleeding too badly, they can treat with transfusions and watch and wait while they give her medications to treat her, and mediations to treat the fetus. But if the condition is moderate to severe, an immedate caesarean is done to avoid a hemorrhage from killing the woman (and the fetus). Placenta abruptio is a medical emergency. Usually you can wait, but no, it’s not always an option. Usually it happens in the last trimester, but it does happen earlier. No matter when it happens, it can lead to no other option but immediate caesarean with the premie being treated in the NICU.

So is it always an option to wait? No, not always. As described above. These treatments (early caesarean with transfer of premie to the NICU) happen all the time, in Catholic as well as secular hospitals.

Actually, you’re not supposed to do a C-sec. That is an attack on the baby. You may take out the organ with the baby in it. Doing a C-sec is a highly questionable practice and the Holy Father does not sanction it.

Remember, the rule is that you may never do anything directly against the unborn child. To extract the unborn is a direct act against the child to save the mother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[catharina]

Actually, you’re not supposed to do a C-sec. That is an attack on the baby. You may take out the organ with the baby in it. Doing a C-sec is a highly questionable practice and the Holy Father does not sanction it.

Remember, the rule is that you may never do anything directly against the unborn child. To extract the unborn is a direct act against the child to save the mother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Many many many thanks, Brother.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

In the case of a mother dying in child birth, what moral medical measures can be taken? Just to note, this is for a discussion I’m having with “pro choicers”.

 

[Alix1912]

In the case of a mother dying in child birth, what moral medical measures can be taken? Just to note, this is for a discussion I’m having with “pro choicers”.

I love how pro-choicers focus on the incredibly rare cases where the Mother’s life is in danger, and you cannot wait until the baby is viable outside the womb. This is the case in a fraction of a percent of the abortions performed. Same thing with the rape and incest case it accounts for less than 2% of the abortions performed.

In reality they are trying to protect the concept of using abortion as a method of Birth Control and for culling purposes, which is sick and makes us no better than the ancient Spartans.

You have to go through some pretty serious mental gymnastics to find a situation where terminating the baby is the ONLY way to save the mother. Are they out there…yes but they are EXTREMELY rare.

 

[JReducation]

I love how pro-choicers focus on the incredibly rare cases where the Mother’s life is in danger, and you cannot wait until the baby is viable outside the womb. This is the case in a fraction of a percent of the abortions performed. Same thing with the rape and incest case it accounts for less than 2% of the abortions performed.

In reality they are trying to protect the concept of using abortion as a method of Birth Control and for culling purposes, which is sick and makes us no better than the ancient Spartans.

You have to go through some pretty serious mental gymnastics to find a situation where terminating the baby is the ONLY way to save the mother. Are they out there…yes but they are EXTREMELY rare.

Bold is mine.

And they are NEVER ALLOWED.

You cannot kill the baby to save the mother, even in the most extreme situation. To do so is to do a great evil. It is so evil that the Church refers to it as the greatest evil of our time.

Society needs to stop looking for that one single time when abortion is justifiable. We’re never going to find it.

This is not a Catholic thing. It’s a matter of social justice. Social Justice is not Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. It’s naturally human, not even a human fabrication. Even if no one believed it, it would not cease to be true. Even if everyone believed that there is a single exception to the moral law of abortion, everyone would still be wrong.

Evil does not become good because everyone believes it. Truth does not cease to be truth, because no one believes it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Alix1912]

Bold is mine.

And they are NEVER ALLOWED.

You cannot kill the baby to save the mother, even in the most extreme situation. To do so is to do a great evil. It is so evil that the Church refers to it as the greatest evil of our time.

Society needs to stop looking for that one single time when abortion is justifiable. We’re never going to find it.

This is not a Catholic thing. It’s a matter of social justice. Social Justice is not Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. It’s naturally human, not even a human fabrication. Even if no one believed it, it would not cease to be true. Even if everyone believed that there is a single exception to the moral law of abortion, everyone would still be wrong.

Evil does not become good because everyone believes it. Truth does not cease to be truth, because no one believes it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I wasn’t saying that was right or OK, I believ it is wrong to demand an innocent person who has no choice in the matter to die so another can live. (Totally different than choosing to sacrifice your life to save another…which is noble).

I was saying that to find the either/or situation where one must die for the other to live is so EXTREMELY rare, you really have to go through some mental gymnastics to find that situation. My point is that these extremely rare situations (which are often very emotional and heartbreaking situations) are used to justify abortion on the whole. Basically, we are maintaining a system which over 98% of it is used for selfish purposes on the premise that is is needed for that 1 in a million case of an either/or situation (which is still not OK), and that is kinda absurd when you think about it.

 

[Incomplete]

In the case of a mother dying in child birth, what moral medical measures can be taken? Just to note, this is for a discussion I’m having with “pro choicers”.

This is very unclear. What would be killing her in childbirth? What measures are they suggesting would have to be done to save the mother? Because by the time she’s giving birth, I don’t understand how giving birth would kill the mother but any method of killing the baby would not harm the mother. Somehow or other that baby has to be removed from the body, so why would it harm the mother during childbirth but not after the baby is dead?

Regarding the earlier comment about not allowing C-sections, that’s meant, of course, if the C-section is before the child is viable. So, for example, when a mother is dying while giving birth, a C-section might be an option.

 

[blanc10]

I think medical advances have helped this situation a great deal. If the mother’s life is in danger, they could always do a caesarean section, which will allow them to have a chance to save the child and get the child out of the mother’s womb.

Although it may seem a bit harsh to pick one or the other, the Catholic Church highly recommends that there be a great deal of effort to save both.

 

[2cats]

Many thanks to JReducation for great posts.

I’m surprised no one directly mentioned the poll results. I, for one, found it pretty disturbing that almost 25% thought the child always has the right to live whereas only 10%thought the mother did. My understanding from RCIA (and JReducation) is that the Church doesn’t value one life over the other. Yet, 25% of the poll responders seem to assume that the baby’s life is more valuable.

 

[Rence]

Actually, you’re not supposed to do a C-sec. That is an attack on the baby. You may take out the organ with the baby in it. Doing a C-sec is a highly questionable practice and the Holy Father does not sanction it.

Remember, the rule is that you may never do anything directly against the unborn child. To extract the unborn is a direct act against the child to save the mother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The disfunctioning organ is the placenta, which is causing a hemorrhage that is a threat to both the woman and the fetus. It is removed during the C-section. The fetus is not directly attacked. It is moved to an environment where it can be doctored. A fetus cannot survive if the placenta is causing a hemorrhage.

Saying that it is a 'highly questionable practice" and that “the Holy Father does not sanction it”, does that mean he forbids it or doesn’t like it? Because the only alternative in this lose-lose situation is to lose both woman and fetus when both can benefit from modern medicine.

 

[Rence]

Many thanks to JReducation for great posts.

I’m surprised no one directly mentioned the poll results. I, for one, found it pretty disturbing that almost 25% thought the child always has the right to live whereas only 10%thought the mother did. My understanding from RCIA (and JReducation) is that the Church doesn’t value one life over the other. Yet, 25% of the poll responders seem to assume that the baby’s life is more valuable.

It doesn’t surprise me one bit.

 

[Rence]

I think medical advances have helped this situation a great deal. If the mother’s life is in danger, they could always do a caesarean section, which will allow them to have a chance to save the child and get the child out of the mother’s womb.

Although it may seem a bit harsh to pick one or the other, the Catholic Church highly recommends that there be a great deal of effort to save both.

Apparently JR Education said that the Holy Father doesn’t sanction this. I don’t know if that means that it’s forbidden or if he frowns at it. Waiting for clarification from him. Because when I asked my priest he said the treatments for these conditions were licit. And frankly, I don’t know how they can’t be licit since, as you said, a great deal of effort is made with modern advances to save both.

 

[Rence]

In the case of a mother dying in child birth, what moral medical measures can be taken? Just to note, this is for a discussion I’m having with “pro choicers”.

I don’t understand exactly what you’re asking. If a mother is dying in child birth, I have no unearthly clue how it would help her to have an ‘abortion’ since the baby is in the act of being born, and well past viability. Can you give an example of a senario you are thinking of?