Abortion: the Woman or Child

[ianonavy]

I am Catholic, and have been told that there are rare cases in which an abortion for a woman may be permitted.

In the case that the child would die inevitably regardless of an abortion or birth, but the mother could live if she aborts the child, the sacrifice of the child through an abortion is condoned.
However, in the case that the mother will inevitably die but the child could still live, abortion is not condoned and all priority in measures should be taken to save the child.

The case that I have a question about is when it is inevitable that either the woman or the child would die, and it has to be one or the other. The Catholic perspective is that all life is sacred and equal, including the life of the unborn. My question is, how do we determine who gets to live in a one or the other situation like the above? Does the mother always live, or does the child? Should the decision be up to the mother, the father, or both parents?

I’ll restate that I would like the Catholic perspective on this topic. I do not want to ignite a heated debate on whether abortion should be allowed or not.

 

[ActuallyAquinas]

You seem like a very bright person, bring such question to the Forums of Catholic.com. However, you have been misinformed about abortion, as Catholics we can never condone or permit abortion.

This is because of the maxim, the means can never justify the end. We can never kill one person to the save the life of another. In both cases we give reasonable care to both the mother and the child in order for them to live out the rest of their lives.

We do not determine who gets to live in any situation, we given reasonable treatment for both persons. We never deliberately kill anyone in either situation. The decision is up to no one except G-d!

 

[mattkubes]

In the case that the child would die inevitably regardless of an abortion or birth, but the mother could live if she aborts the child, the sacrifice of the child through an abortion is condoned.

Sorry, you have that wrong. Direct abortion is never a permissible “treatment” option. The only scenario that I can imagine which matches your description is an ectopic pregnancy. In that case we can use the principle of Double Effect. Say it’s a tubal pregnancy, removal of that section of fallopian tube is the direct action which indirectly results in the death of the child. Use of something like methotrexate is a direct chemical abortion and isn’t an acceptable option.

My question is, how do we determine who gets to live in a one or the other situation like the above? Does the mother always live, or does the child? Should the decision be up to the mother, the father, or both parents?

I can’t think of a real-life situation that fulfills these criteria. Can you give an example? Until then, it doesn’t really make sense to speculate.

 

[ByzCat3]

Ianonavy, the person who told you this was somewhat half-correct, after a fashion (okay, umm, not really)… Abortion is NEVER an option.

Here are the conditions:
If either the mother or the child can live, but the doctors are absolutely certain that not both will live;
And if the mother can be saved through an operation;
And if the operation is not abortive in nature;
And if the infant’s death is only an accepted, but nevertheless unintended, side effect,
Then, as the mother and child’s life are of equal value, it is permissible to go through with the procedure.

Look up the “principle of double effect.” That’ll help you understand.

And here’s a link to St. Gianna Molla’s Wikipedia page. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla#Final_pregnancy

 

[lizaanne]

I am Catholic, and have been told that there are rare cases in which an abortion for a woman may be permitted.

I doubt you will get many votes as you are sadly misinformed on Catholic teaching on abortion.

~Liza

 

[ianonavy]

This is because of the maxim, the means can never justify the end. We can never kill one person to the save the life of another.

Well, if the mother is killed so that the child can live, how is that any different from the child dying so that the mother can live?

Also, Jesus was killed to save the lives of everyone, so by that belief, that action was unjustified. He was human, after all.

 

[ianonavy]

And if the operation is not abortive in nature;
And if the infant’s death is only an accepted, but nevertheless unintended, side effect

What sort of procedure would result in the death of the unborn fetus and not be abortive in nature? Would it be to extract the child to save the mother, but the child dies of an accident? I can’t think of an example.

 

[mattkubes]

Well, if the mother is killed so that the child can live, how is that any different from the child dying so that the mother can live?

This never happens. The mother is never killed so that her child can live.

Also, Jesus was killed to save the lives of everyone, so by that belief, that action was unjustified. He was human, after all.

Our Lord was a blameless, spotless Victim. His crucifixion was unjustified. But God worked great good despite our great evil.

 

[mattkubes]

What sort of procedure would result in the death of the unborn fetus and not be abortive in nature? Would it be to extract the child to save the mother, but the child dies of an accident? I can’t think of an example.

I gave one in my first post. You might want to read up on the principle of Double Effect.

 

[ianonavy]

This never happens. The mother is never killed so that her child can live.

Well, not killed but left to die.

Our Lord was a blameless, spotless Victim. His crucifixion was unjustified. But God worked great good despite our great evil.

But he had to die to save us, just like a child might have to die to save the mother. If it’s more likely that the child would die than the mother, surely trying to save the mother even if it results in the death of the child isn’t a bad thing, no?

 

[SwizzleStick]

I am Catholic, and have been told that there are rare cases in which an abortion for a woman may be permitted. …

What you have been told is incorrect. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and is not permitted.

 

[mattkubes]

But he had to die to save us, just like a child might have to die to save the mother. If it’s more likely that the child would die than the mother, surely trying to save the mother even if it results in the death of the child isn’t a bad thing, no?

Are you seriously comparing our Lord’s death on Calvary to clinical murder or the unborn?

Mind boggling. There is no parallel.

 

[ianonavy]

Are you seriously comparing our Lord’s death on Calvary to clinical murder or the unborn?

Mind boggling. There is no parallel.

I’m not saying that abortion in general can be compared to Christ’s Crucifixion. I am saying that both are cases in which an innocent human being is killed to save the life of another. In Christ’s case, it was everyone. In the case of a rare but necessary abortion in which the child is more likely to survive than the mother, killing the child could be justified to save the life of the mother, since doing absolutely nothing at letting nature take its course would simply result in the both of them dying. We are pro-life, no? We want to save as many lives as we can, since life is sacred, even if the act of killing in and of itself is a morally wrong action.

That’s just my perspective on it.

 

[mattkubes]

In the case of a rare but necessary abortion in which the child is more likely to survive than the mother, killing the child could be justified to save the life of the mother, since doing absolutely nothing at letting nature take its course would simply result in the both of them dying.

You keep saying that, but these cases simply don’t exist. There’s no situation where direct abortion is the only “treatment” option.

What you’ve posted is this: in cases where abortion is the only option, can abortion be an acceptable option?

That’s a false construct.

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

“The direct killing of the foetus is murder and therefore always gravely sinful. Even though it be done to save the life of the mother, it is not permissible to destroy the living child, e.g., by craniotomy, embryotomy, etc. (Note, however, that it is possible to perform certain cranial operations that reduce the size of the head and save the life of the child by allowing it to be born.)-- So, too, it is always mortally sinful to procure an abortion, even though both mother and child will otherwise die. This holds also for ectopic gestation. There may be cases in which one may be left in good faith. Moreover, in most instances help may be rendered in a lawful manner by a caesaren section or similar operations.-- All that is likewise mortally sinful which is done with the intention of effecting an abortion, even though this effect does not follow.”

Provided by “Moral Theology” by Fr. Heribert Jone.

 

[ianonavy]

You keep saying that, but these cases simply don’t exist. There’s no situation where direct abortion is the only “treatment” option.

What you’ve posted is this: in cases where abortion is the only option, can abortion be an acceptable option?

That’s a false construct.

No, I am saying, in cases where abortion could lead to saving more lives than doing nothing and letting both the mother and the child die, it could be acceptable. There are two options: let the mother and the child die, or have an abortion and have only the child die. I know it isn’t black and white, but I can’t think of another option right now.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

No, I am saying, in cases where abortion could lead to saving more lives than doing nothing and letting both the mother and the child die, it could be acceptable. There are two options: let the mother and the child die, or have an abortion and have only the child die. I know it isn’t black and white, but I can’t think of another option right now.

As a Catholic and a nurse I will say the only option is to do everything you can to save both lives. Never, never is abortion an option. The Catholic Church never condones abortion.

Medically speaking medical personel would never do “nothing” and “let both die.” They would work and do all to save both lives. Every possible care should and has to be taken to save both lives.

 

[SwizzleStick]

No, I am saying, in cases where abortion could lead to saving more lives than doing nothing and letting both the mother and the child die, it could be acceptable. …

No, it cannot be acceptable. Abortion is never acceptable.

…There are two options: let the mother and the child die, or have an abortion and have only the child die. …

No, again. Abortion is never an option.

 

[NeedImprovement]

That an actual poll on abortion should somehow materialize at CAF is rare indeed.

What was it our Holy Father Pope John Paul II said again ?.. " You cannot take a vote on the truth ."

The OP said

I’ll restate that I would like the Catholic perspective on this topic…

And that’s exactly what has been happening. However,due to continued questioning, the more that the aforementioned happens, the less that this next part becomes feasible :

… I do not want to ignite a heated debate on whether abortion should be allowed or not.

I was personally willing to try and “humour” this thread for a while - even this part

I do not want to ignite a heated debate on whether abortion should be allowed or not.

… until it came to this (bolds mine):

Well, if the mother is killed so that the child can live, how is that any different from the child dying so that the mother can live?

Also, Jesus was killed to save the lives of everyone, so by that belief, that action was unjustified. He was human, after all.

…But he had to die to save us, just like a child might have to die to save the mother.

Please be careful to note here that the holy Sacrifice on Calvary which is our Redemption and which we have so recently commemorated solemnly as Catholics has just been equated or compared to an abortion. Can anyone actually believe this could ever somehow be pleasing to our Blessed Lord - even in the most minute way ? … …Anyone think we need to have a poll on the answer to that question ?

Irrelevant as to whether it was intentional or not, here’s what has transpired:

The above quotes from the OP have just demonstrated for us the mentality of the abortionist. To keep the list short,

• Our Blessed Lord’s mission was to die for us - to save us from our sins and to redeem us. He did this of his own volition, being the second person of the most Holy Trinity and being both God and man with His Divine will and His human will. He willingly laid down His life for us.
• The child in the womb who is aborted is not considered a human person - no rights ; never allowed to exercise his or her own free will - never allowed to have a choice in the matter championed, for the most part, by those who call themselves 'pro choice’.:dts:

Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Abortion has neither of the two. It is a dark, senseless void.

 

[MontChevalier]

Hail,

I picked Saving the child because I believe in the future. It’s highly lamentable when a mother dies at childbirth, but it’s a greater tragedy for an unborn child to die. Which brings the occasion of who is the greatest in Heaven.

Matthew 18:1-3

“1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

As a Knight of God, I cannot allow a murder to go on unchallenged. But as his servant, I know that hidden in the shadows, there is a devil with a smile trying to force us into darkness. It’s true. We’re all tested this way. And with this poll, I hope we should all understand that and pray, just pray, it never happens. Lest we be tested like Job.

Amen, I say.
-MontChevalier