Abortion: the Woman or Child

[catharina]

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.

Actually, it is black and white.
Catholic teaching allows for NO abortion.

 

[heart4home]

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.

I assume you are saying the other treatment option is to let the mother die if the other treatments don’t work.

There are cases where if a baby is not delivered at a time before it is old enough to survive that the mother may die. Severe Eclampsia is one of those cases.

Take the Michele Duggar scenario. They had to deliver because she had severe Pre-Eclampsia was very ill and the other treatments were NOT working, but she was very fortunate that her baby was at least past the stage(though barely) of viability. If it had all happened two weeks earlier she would have had to make a very hard decision.

Or lets say the mother is bleeding, but the baby still has a heartbeat and is alive, but mother is hemorraging. If they don’t deliver the mother will die and so will the baby. The death of the mother may come before the heartbeat of the baby stops. The baby is not at viability yet.

 

[Phemie]

I assume you are saying the other treatment option is to let the mother die if the other treatments don’t work.

There are cases where if a baby is not delivered at a time before it is old enough to survive that the mother may die. Severe Eclampsia is one of those cases.

Take the Michele Duggar scenario. They had to deliver because she had severe Pre-Eclampsia was very ill and the other treatments were NOT working, but she was very fortunate that her baby was at least past the stage(though barely) of viability. If it had all happened two weeks earlier she would have had to make a very hard decision.

Delivering the child early with the intention to do whatever can be done to help him survive is quite different from tearing him to pieces or burning him with saline with the intent to kill him.

 

[heart4home]

Delivering the child early with the intention to do whatever can be done to help him survive is quite different from tearing him to pieces or burning him with saline with the intent to kill him.

OK, but in those cases that is what would happen. The mother would deliver, HOWEVER you must understand that in legal terms delivering before viability is considered pregnancy termination/abortion.

Do you know that many women who terminate for things like Trisomy 18, still go through labor and delivery. They don’t just rip the baby to shreds but it’s still considered abortion.

 

[Phemie]

OK, but in those cases that is what would happen. The mother would deliver, HOWEVER you must understand that in legal terms delivering before viability is considered pregnancy termination/abortion.

Do you know that many women who terminate for things like Trisomy 18, still go through labor and delivery. They don’t just rip the baby to shreds but it’s still considered abortion.

 

[catharina]

OK, but in those cases that is what would happen. The mother would deliver, HOWEVER you must understand that in legal terms delivering before viability is considered pregnancy termination/abortion.

Do you know that many women who terminate for things like Trisomy 18, still go through labor and delivery. They don’t just rip the baby to shreds but it’s still considered abortion.

It’s still considered abortion becasue it IS abortion.
Do you not recognize that?

 

[heart4home]

It’s still considered abortion becasue it IS abortion.
Do you not recognize that?

That was my point. That they said the issue could never arise and I said it could and does, and they induce and deliver but it is still considered abortion, and YES I know it is abortion, which is why I brought it up.

Well you know, I’m going to edit this and say in some situations, I don’t believe it is abortion. If the baby will die and the mother will die, choosing to deliver early, even knowing the baby can not be saved doesn’t really fall under abortion. I’d see it as similar to an ectopic pregnancy etc.

 

[heart4home]

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.

But what if the baby was way before viability. 12 weeks say for ease of discussion. There is nothing you can do to save the baby at that point, if the only way to save the mother is to deliver the baby.

 

[SwizzleStick]

But what if the baby was way before viability. 12 weeks say for ease of discussion. There is nothing you can do to save the baby at that point, if the only way to save the mother is to deliver the baby.

You might want to read this. I disagree with it since I don’t think abortion should be legal at all, but since it is written by someone who actually states that a surgical abortion never needs to be done to “save the life of the mother,” it does have value.

Life of the Mother - Is It Needed in Legislation?
christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=66

 

[heart4home]

You might want to read this.

Life of the Mother - Is It Needed in Legislation?
christianliferesources.com/?/library/view.php&articleid=66

Interesting, but it really just glossed over the fact that things do happen before viability that will lead to the mother’s death, besides ectopics. Toxemia which it mentioned happening in the 3rd trimester which is usually the case, does happen earlier, sometimes as soon as 20 or 22 weeks. Other things can be maternal hemorrhage where the baby is still alive, not at a viable age, but the mother is at grave risk.

I was curious what the nurse would say would happen in a medical setting in such situations.

It seems that taking two lives when one could be saved, would not be respecting life.

 

[catharina]

Interesting, but it really just glossed over the fact that things do happen before viability that will lead to the mother’s death, besides ectopics. Toxemia which it mentioned happening in the 3rd trimester which is usually the case, does happen earlier, sometimes as soon as 20 or 22 weeks. Other things can be maternal hemorrhage where the baby is still alive, not at a viable age, but the mother is at grave risk.

I was curious what the nurse would say would happen in a medical setting in such situations.

It seems that taking two lives when one could be saved, would not be respecting life.

**
… taking two lives?

You mean allowing two deaths and taking NO ONE’S life.**

Seriously, I’m clueless as to what
you’re saying and/or asking on this topic.

 

[foundmyfaith]

I have seen this situation exactly ONCE. It resulted in an indirect abortion. Technically, a gravid hysterectomy. I work for a Catholic hospital. Situation was an AMAZINGLY rare condition that caused the mother to bleed nearly to death. The uterus was removed, with the non-viable baby intact.

The ethics committee did a great job on that one. It must have been difficult.

 

[catharina]

I have seen this situation exactly ONCE. It resulted in an indirect abortion. Technically, a gravid hysterectomy. I work for a Catholic hospital. Situation was an AMAZINGLY rare condition that caused the mother to bleed nearly to death. The uterus was removed, with the non-viable baby intact.

The ethics committee did a great job on that one. It must have been difficult.

Couldn’t help but notice your signature.
So very sorry about the loss of your son.

 

[heart4home]

**
… taking two lives?

You mean allowing two deaths and taking NO ONE’S life.**

Seriously, I’m clueless as to what
you’re saying and/or asking on this topic.

I don’t think it’s that hard to understand.

In an ectopic pregnancy we allow the removal of the tube, because the baby can not survive and the mother will die.

If a mother is bleeding to death, or on the verge of death from toxemia both could be allowed to die, or we could deliver the baby early which would allow the mother to survive. The baby will die either way.

 

[catharina]

I don’t think it’s that hard to understand.

In an ectopic pregnancy we allow the removal of the tube, because the baby can not survive and the mother will die.

If a mother is bleeding to death, or on the verge of death from toxemia both could be allowed to die, or we could deliver the baby early which would allow the mother to survive. The baby will die either way.

Read Post # 31.
No baby was delivered.

A hysterectomy was performed.
That is, the uterus was removed.
That saved the mother’s life.

The baby died - as a baby dies when a tube is removed.

IOW, neither surgery provides a Direct Abortion.

 

[heart4home]

I have seen this situation exactly ONCE. It resulted in an indirect abortion. Technically, a gravid hysterectomy. I work for a Catholic hospital. Situation was an AMAZINGLY rare condition that caused the mother to bleed nearly to death. The uterus was removed, with the non-viable baby intact.

The ethics committee did a great job on that one. It must have been difficult.

Thank you for taking the time to answer, that was actually what I thought might happen with the bleeding scenario.

I still do wonder what would happen with the Toxemia scenario. As I mentioned the Michele Duggar case. Just a decade ago, that baby would not have been considered at viability. Perhaps they would have continued to use theraputic drugs and wait for her to seize etc. But what then. Would they just continue to allow her to seize until she died, or would they step in and deliver or perhaps remove her uterus as in the bleeding episode.

You are right the decisions that sometimes need to be made by the ethics committee must be very difficult.

I too am very sorry for the loss of your son.

 

[foundmyfaith]

Couldn’t help but notice your signature.
So very sorry about the loss of your son.

Thank you. I keep telling myself that he is wrapped in the arms of our Lord, but my arms still feel painfully empty.

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Spot-on.

Removing a fallopian tube that has a blockage in it is always permissible, even if that blockage happens to be a baby. It will have the unintended effect of killing the baby, but it is NOT an abortion because the death of the baby was unintended.

 

[catharina]

Thank you. I keep telling myself that he is wrapped in the arms of our Lord, but my arms still feel painfully empty.

Truly, I know that I can’t imagine your pain. God bless you.

 

[Prayerfully]

It’s still considered abortion becasue it IS abortion.
Do you not recognize that?

Okay, let me get this straight…If a women is given an emergency C-section at 22-23 weeks due to eclampsia or severe pre-eclampsia, the surgery is done to save the life of the mom and the NICU staff will attend to the baby- although the survival rate for the micropreemie is slim at this stage of gestation. That is okay, right? I certainly hope so, because that’s what I’ve been using as an example to pro-aborts or undecided people when it comes to “saving the life of the mother” and preeclampsia/eclampsia, placental abruption, and a complete previa over an unstoppable dilating cervix are cases where an emergency C-section is done to save mom’s life and all attempts are made to resuscitate and stabilize the micrompreemie, thus making “partial-birth abortion” unnecessary, since by that time of gestational age, the baby has a chance of survival and an emergency C-section can be done to “save the life of the mother”.

However, when a women has pregnancy where in the unborn baby has a lethal anomoly, such as Trisomy 18 or anacephaly, and chooses to be induced and deliver a baby before they can survive outside the womb, that’s considered an abortion, am I right with this?