Abortion: the Woman or Child

[NeedImprovement]

The whole principle of Double Effect, when properly applied, is centered on intention.

Despite the higher mortality rate among Trisomy 18 babies [according to limited sources I’ve read, roughly 50% of all Trisomy 18 babies carried to term will be stillborn] than there is among Trisomy 21(Down syndrome) babies ,one article says :
Trisomy 18 Foundation; linked article:

“While there are different types of Trisomy 18, this does not mean one is better for a child than another. With each type, there is a range of possibilities. Some children are medically fragile while others thrive; some children walk while others are confined to wheelchairs. It is hard to say how the extra chromosome will impact an individual child from the genetic diagnosis alone.”

This would suggest that the carrying of Trisomy 18 babies poses no health threat to the mother, other than complications arising from incomplete miscarriage, at which point abortion would already be a non-issue.

Given the above and considering the question :

…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?

, we would need to know why the mother would choose to “induce and deliver a baby before it can survive outside the womb” while it still has a chance to live, all the time posing no threat at all to the life of the mother.

I’ll leave anacephaly to someone else, but as far as Trisomy 18 is concerned, I believe I might hesitate to call it a “lethal anomaly” given the survival rate.

“The genetic material from the extra eighteenth chromosome can cause a variety of problems with varying severity. Just as children with Down syndrome can range from mildly to severely affected, the same is true for children with Trisomy 18. This means that there is no hard and fast rule about what Trisomy 18 will mean for your child. However, statistics show that there is a high mortality rate for children with Trisomy 18 before or shortly after birth.”

 

[heart4home]

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?

Yes, that is my understanding. Just choosing to deliver the baby because it will likely die at birth, before it has an adequate chance of survival outside the womb, IS abortion.

Your first scenario though is the one I still wonder about. What about if the mother develops Toxemia at 20 weeks gestation. Rare, but does happen. I would have still thought that the intent to deliver was to save the mother, not to cause an abortion so an induced delivery or c-section without removal of the uterus would be OK, but it seems that I was wrong as others have said the only option in such cases would be removal of the baby along while inside the uterus.

The thing is though, it’s not the uterus causing the problem, it’s the placenta, so I don’t really see how they can say that it’s double effect. They would be removing a uterus that does not need to be removed, AND is not the cause of the problem just to say that they are not giving an abortion.

Technically just removing the placenta which is the source of the problem and would have the unwanted effect of killing the baby, would seem more like the double effect they should consider. But obviously others are more aware of what the Church teaches then I.

 

[Prayerfully]

Yes, that is my understanding. Just choosing to deliver the baby because it will likely die at birth, before it has an adequate chance of survival outside the womb, IS abortion.

Your first scenario though is the one I still wonder about. What about if the mother develops Toxemia at 20 weeks gestation. Rare, but does happen. I would have still thought that the intent to deliver was to save the mother, not to cause an abortion so an induced delivery or c-section without removal of the uterus would be OK, but it seems that I was wrong as others have said the only option in such cases would be removal of the baby along while inside the uterus.

The thing is though, it’s not the uterus causing the problem, it’s the placenta, so I don’t really see how they can say that it’s double effect. They would be removing a uterus that does not need to be removed, AND is not the cause of the problem just to say that they are not giving an abortion.

Technically just removing the placenta which is the source of the problem and would have the unwanted effect of killing the baby, would seem more like the double effect they should consider. But obviously others are more aware of what the Church teaches then I.

You know what? I think that if they had a NICU team there in the OR for the delivery, then the intent is to save both the mom and the baby. If the NICU team determines that the baby is too premature for resuscitation efforts, then that’s the way it is. Otherwise, they do what the can to stabilize the baby for the long road ahead. You’ve given baby the best chance you can and mom, too. The mom has been saved and they’ve determined they did what they could for the baby. For me and my conscience, that’s not an abortion. What do the rest of you think on this one?

 

[heart4home]

You know what? I think that if they had a NICU team there in the OR for the delivery, then the intent is to save both the mom and the baby. If the NICU team determines that the baby is too premature for resuscitation efforts, then that’s the way it is. Otherwise, they do what the can to stabilize the baby for the long road ahead. You’ve given baby the best chance you can and mom, too. The mom has been saved and they’ve determined they did what they could for the baby. For me and my conscience, that’s not an abortion. What do the rest of you think on this one?

That’s what I’ve felt too. If the mother’s intent and hope was to save both their lives but the baby is just too young to survive, well than that is God’s will, but it seems some are saying the Church teaches otherwise. My heart breaks for any family that may have or will face this type of thing.

 

[catharina]

You know what? I think that if they had a NICU team there in the OR for the delivery, then the intent is to save both the mom and the baby. If the NICU team determines that the baby is too premature for resuscitation efforts, then that’s the way it is. Otherwise, they do what the can to stabilize the baby for the long road ahead. You’ve given baby the best chance you can and mom, too. The mom has been saved and they’ve determined they did what they could for the baby. For me and my conscience, that’s not an abortion. What do the rest of you think on this one?

That’s what I’ve felt too. If the mother’s intent and hope was to save both their lives but the baby is just too young to survive, well than that is God’s will, but it seems some are saying the Church teaches otherwise. My heart breaks for any family that may have or will face this type of thing.

Willfully, “delivering” a child when one knows it is too young for survival outside the womb, is the very essence of direct abortion. Therefore. it is always forbidden. Beyond this, it’s all a game with words. Taking an action that will result in the birth of a baby (who can not survive) is a direct abortion.

 

[Prayerfully]

That’s what I’ve felt too. If the mother’s intent and hope was to save both their lives but the baby is just too young to survive, well than that is God’s will, but it seems some are saying the Church teaches otherwise. My heart breaks for any family that may have or will face this type of thing.

Thankfully I didn’t read all the posts to see if someone insists that the mom should just die while seizing on the OR table from eclampsia because the baby’s too premature and performing a C-section to save mom would be abortion. Or that a mom should bleed to death with an abruption or complete previa with cervical dilation because the baby won’t survive outside the womb on his/hew own and therefore an emergency C-section would be abortion.

I think if you look carefully, you can see that it’s a “diseased” (if you will) placenta that is causing the eclampsia, a detaching placenta that is causing a near-fatal hemorrhage with an abruption, and a complete previa with dilation is going to cause a detaching or tearing placenta. To remove the placenta will save the life of the mom, but depending on gestational age, may or may not save the baby. Thus, for those that really question the morality/ehtics of those scenarios, it would make it an “indirect” abortion if the baby didn’t survive, but a heroic premature birth if they did survive.

 

[Prayerfully]

Willfully, “delivering” a child when one knows it is too young for survival outside the womb, is the very essence of direct abortion. Therefore. it is always forbidden. Beyond this, it’s all a game with words. Taking an action that will result in the birth of a baby (who can not survive) is a direct abortion.

Please understand that I’m not trying to be argumentative, but are you saying that a mom should just die while seizing on the OR table from eclampsia because the baby’s too premature and performing a C-section to save mom would be abortion. Or that a mom should bleed to death with an abruption or complete previa with cervical dilation because the baby won’t survive outside the womb on his/hew own and therefore an emergency C-section would be abortion. Delivery of the placenta is the only known cure/treatment for each of those 3 scenarios. And I will say that those 3 medical conditions are not unusual in a hospital that deals with very high risk pregnancies.

I think if you look carefully, you can see that it’s a “diseased” (if you will) placenta that is causing the eclampsia, a detaching placenta that is causing a near-fatal hemorrhage with an abruption, and a complete previa with dilation is going to cause a detaching or tearing placenta. To remove the placenta will save the life of the mom, but depending on gestational age, may or may not save the baby. Thus, for those that really question the morality/ehtics of those scenarios, it would make it an “indirect” abortion if the baby didn’t survive, but a heroic premature birth if they did survive?

 

[heart4home]

Willfully, “delivering” a child when one knows it is too young for survival outside the womb, is the very essence of direct abortion. Therefore. it is always forbidden. Beyond this, it’s all a game with words. Taking an action that will result in the birth of a baby (who can not survive) is a direct abortion.

Intent to kill a baby is the essence of direct abortion.

Intent to remove a placenta that is causing a mother to seize due to Toxemia or bleed to death, is no different to me, then removing a portion of tube that a baby is growing in that will lead a mother to bleed to death. Both have the same intent, both have the same result.

 

[catharina]

Please understand that I’m not trying to be argumentative, but are you saying that a mom should just die while seizing on the OR table from eclampsia because the baby’s too premature and performing a C-section to save mom would be abortion. Or that a mom should bleed to death with an abruption or complete previa with cervical dilation because the baby won’t survive outside the womb on his/hew own and therefore an emergency C-section would be abortion.

I think if you look carefully, you can see that it’s a “diseased” (if you will) placenta that is causing the eclampsia, a detaching placenta that is causing a near-fatal hemorrhage with an abruption, and a complete previa with dilation is going to cause a detaching or tearing placenta. To remove the placenta will save the life of the mom, but depending on gestational age, may or may not save the baby. Thus, for those that really question the morality/ehtics of those scenarios, it would make it an “indirect” abortion if the baby didn’t survive, but a heroic premature birth if they did survive.

If you can provide a source-linked Church teaching that says exactly that, it’s likely that I will be able to agree with you. Otherwise, NO. Church teaching is that we do NOT sacrifice one life to “save” another. Do you accept that?

 

[Prayerfully]

Intent to kill a baby is the essence of direct abortion.

Intent to remove a placenta that is causing a mother to seize or bleed to death, is no different to me, then removing a portion of tube that a baby is growing in that will lead a mother to bleed to death. Both have the same intent, both have the same result.

There is no difference.

 

[catharina]

Intent to kill a baby is the essence of direct abortion.

Intent to remove a placenta that is causing a mother to seize due to Toxemia or bleed to death, is no different to me, then removing a portion of tube that a baby is growing in that will lead a mother to bleed to death. Both have the same intent, both have the same result.

Prove it. Since I have never heard of such a surgical intervention in my entire life, please provide a source that allows for such a surgery - within Church teaching.

 

[Prayerfully]

Prove it. Since I have never heard of such a surgical intervention in my entire life, please provide a source that allows for such a surgery - within Church teaching.

Seriously? You’ve never heard of a surgical intervention called a Ceserean Section being used to deliver a woman who developed preeclampsia to the point her vital organs shut down (kidneys, liver, clotting ability) and she needed an emergency C-section? You’ve never heard of an emergency C-section because the plancenta broke free from the uterine wall (can often be another side effect of severe preeclampsia) and you’ve never heard of the placenta attaching itself over the cervix?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=940

In each of the 3 scenarios I commented on, the placenta is the malfunctioning organ.

 

[catharina]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307

In each of the 3 scenarios I commented on, the placenta is the malfunctioning organ.

Perhaps you are confused?
I’m fully aware of the allowed treatment of ectopic pregnancies.

I asked about your suggested “treatment” of abruptions.
Will you attempt to respond to that request?

 

[catharina]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307

ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=940

In each of the 3 scenarios I commented on, the placenta is the malfunctioning organ.

See Post # 51.

 

[Prayerfully]

Perhaps you are confused?
I’m fully aware of the allowed treatment of ectopic pregnancies.

I asked about your suggested “treatment” of abruptions.
Will you attempt to respond to that request?

The abruption occurs when the placenta prematurely seperates itself from the uterine wall. The baby will almost always die since the placenta is how the fetus gets oxygen from the umbilical cord. Once it’s no longer attached, the baby dies. If you’ve ever seen a birth, all the blood is from the placenta detaching AFTER the baby is born. Imagine that occurring without the uterus’ ability to clamp down and stop bleeding? There is no treatment for an abruption but delivery, same as with eclampsia. Neither goes away on its own. Thankfully, the majority of these diseases/disorders do not appear or develop until well into the 2nd trimester and at that time, you are looking at a fair chance of survival for the micropreemie. However, those situations (especially an abruption following abdominal trauma such as that from a severe care accident) can occur before 22 weeks. If you don’t believe me on this, ask your own OB/GYN. I’m sure she/he has encountered an eclamptic patient at sometime in their career and most likely they’ve dealt with abruptions (be it a complete, a partial, or a hidden).

 

[heart4home]

The abruption occurs when the placenta prematurely seperates itself from the uterine wall. The baby will almost always die since the placenta is how the fetus gets oxygen from the umbilical cord. Once it’s no longer attached, the baby dies. If you’ve ever seen a birth, all the blood is from the placenta detaching AFTER the baby is born. Imagine that occurring without the uterus’ ability to clamp down and stop bleeding? There is no treatment for an abruption but delivery. Go ask your OB/GYN or read ANY site about childbirth if you cannot understand my explanation A complete abruption doesn’t go away on its own.

Nor does Toxemia go away on it’s own. Pre-Elamspia can be treated, but once it reaches Eclampsia OR HELLP syndrome it can not. The only cure is getting the placenta that is causing the problem out.

To Catharina I have nothing to prove. Anybody with any medical knowledge of those conditions knows the cure. Delivering the baby, no matter what the gestational age, or allowing(as you previously said) both to die.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Please understand that I’m not trying to be argumentative, but are you saying that a mom should just die while seizing on the OR table from eclampsia because the baby’s too premature and performing a C-section to save mom would be abortion. Or that a mom should bleed to death with an abruption or complete previa with cervical dilation because the baby won’t survive outside the womb on his/hew own and therefore an emergency C-section would be abortion. Delivery of the placenta is the only known cure/treatment for each of those 3 scenarios. And I will say that those 3 medical conditions are not unusual in a hospital that deals with very high risk pregnancies.

I think if you look carefully, you can see that it’s a “diseased” (if you will) placenta that is causing the eclampsia, a detaching placenta that is causing a near-fatal hemorrhage with an abruption, and a complete previa with dilation is going to cause a detaching or tearing placenta. To remove the placenta will save the life of the mom, but depending on gestational age, may or may not save the baby. Thus, for those that really question the morality/ehtics of those scenarios, it would make it an “indirect” abortion if the baby didn’t survive, but a heroic premature birth if they did survive?

Well the decision on where the baby would be safer needs to be decided…even if young, if there is a chance for survival delivery could be an option…

My baby was born at 28 weeks, I had an abruption.

The intention of the doctors was to stabilize baby and me and deliver the baby in a few days by c-section. But the environment in the womb was so unstable that labor started, and dilation. Once dilation starts it can’t be stopped.

I gave birth that day. I don’t think I’m unusual…

while I was visiting there I heard the NICU team called to assist various times…once I heard the baby was 21 weeks. I never saw that baby, so I’m not sure what happened.

 

[catharina]

The abruption occurs when the placenta prematurely seperates itself from the uterine wall. The baby will almost always die since the placenta is how the fetus gets oxygen from the umbilical cord. Once it’s no longer attached, the baby dies. If you’ve ever seen a birth, all the blood is from the placenta detaching AFTER the baby is born. Imagine that occurring without the uterus’ ability to clamp down and stop bleeding? There is no treatment for an abruption but delivery, same as with eclampsia. Neither goes away on its own. Thankfully, the majority of these diseases/disorders do not appear or develop until well into the 2nd trimester and at that time, you are looking at a fair chance of survival for the micropreemie. However, those situations (especially an abruption following abdominal trauma such as that from a severe care accident) can occur before 22 weeks. If you don’t believe me on this, ask your own OB/GYN. I’m sure she/he has encountered an eclamptic patient at sometime in their career and most likely they’ve dealt with abruptions (be it a complete, a partial, or a hidden).

Nor does Toxemia go away on it’s own. Pre-Elamspia can be treated, but once it reaches Eclampsia OR HELLP syndrome it can not. The only cure is getting the placenta that is causing the problem out.

To Catharina I have nothing to prove. Anybody with any medical knowledge of those conditions knows the cure. Delivering the baby, no matter what the gestational age, or allowing(as you previously said) both to die.

Excuse me, ladies, both of you do seem to be trying to prove something -
something like “hey, remove the placenta, dooooh.” I’m saying this is not
done and not approved. I’ve attended more than 100 childbirths. Treatment
for ectopic pregnancies is very well-defined. Treatment that is being suggested
by the two of you, related to pregnancies with abruptions is sheer fantasy.

You can “imagine” it would be fine. Yet it is NOT fine.
Your imaginings are off-base. I only intervened here to
point out that fact. heart4home, it is not “I” who is saying
‘allow both to die.’ That is the teaching of the Church! Can’t
you grasp the fact that Catholics are NOT allowed to sacrifice
one life to save another. You two seem to be inventing some
surgical procedures along with inventing some Church doctrine.

Please. Get a grip. Yes, some teachings are very hard. We know that!
Perhaps you can get to know your local doctor-saint Gianna. She
sacrificed her life to save her baby. It’s DONE.

saintgianna.org/

 

[catharina]

Well the decision on where the baby would be safer needs to be decided…even if young, if there is a chance for survival delivery could be an option…

My baby was born at 28 weeks, I had an abruption.

The intention of the doctors was to stabilize baby and me and deliver the baby in a few days by c-section. But the environment in the womb was so unstable that labor started, and dilation. Once dilation starts it can’t be stopped.

I gave birth that day. I don’t think I’m unusual…

while I was visiting there I heard the NICU team called to assist various times…once I heard the baby was 21 weeks. I never saw that baby, so I’m not sure what happened.

I provided FT care for two years for a 24-weeker in her home. What a privilege. She is fine now, no deficits. Six yrs-old and thriving. Mary Gail, I’d like to leave this thread. It galls me beyond bearing to see/hear people “invent” both medical care AND “new” Church teachings. Hope you’ll stick around. Thank you so much.

 

[Prayerfully]

Excuse me, ladies, both of you do seem to be trying to prove something -
something like “hey, remove the placenta, dooooh.” I’m saying this is not
done and not approved. I’ve attended more than 100 childbirths. Treatment
for ectopic pregnancies is very well-defined. Treatment that is being suggested
by the two of you, related to pregnancies with abruptions is sheer fantasy.

You can “imagine” it would be fine. Yet it is NOT fine.
Your imaginings are off-base. I only intervened here to
point out that fact. heart4home, it is not “I” who is saying
‘allow both to die.’ That is the teaching of the Church! Can’t
you grasp the fact that Catholics are NOT allowed to sacrifice
one life to save another. You two seem to be inventing some
surgical procedures along with inventing some Church doctrine.

Please. Get a grip. Yes, some teachings are very hard. We know that!
Perhaps you can get to know your local doctor-saint Gianna. She
sacrificed her life to save her baby. It’s DONE.

saintgianna.org/

Whatever, Catherina! I gave you the clinical explanation and treatment for an abruption. I posted links to sources. You didn’t like what you read, so now you rant. I’m beginning to understand that you wouldn’t be satisfied with an answer from the Holy Father himself if it didn’t agree with your opinions.

I am well aware of St Gianna. She didn’t have an abruption; she refused a hysterectomy during her pregnancy with Gianna Emmanuala. St Gianna died of a massive infection following her classical incision C-section from a full term delivery in 1962.

I think you better be picketing and protesting outside EVERY Catholic hospital in the US because they perform emergency C-sections for placental abruptions and severe preeclampsia every day of the week! Especially those that offer high-risk obstetrics.