Abortion: the Woman or Child

[catharina]

Yes, Prayerfully and Heart4home, you’re both correct. Removing a baby with a lethal anomoly, such as Trisomy 18 or anacephaly, before viability just because it will die after birth, is a direct abortion and is forbidden. You two are both correct.

Of course - in this instance, both are correct.

 

[Prayerfully]

Of course - in this instance, both are correct.

And the other instances, too! You’re so upset that you can’t be “right” about this one that you actually posted a new thread to “rally” support of your opinons! That is pathetic and has been reported!

 

[ANNE_2]

CCC - **" **2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.**" **

 

[heart4home]

Of course - in this instance, both are correct.

I said, I was going to leave, because I am upset by this thread now and it’s not because I can’t be right, but because I feel like you are not reading what I am writing.

I just don’t understand why you felt the need to post in RED that you presume to know what we meant, instead of asking for clarification. That is presumption, is it not?

 

[Prayerfully]

CCC - **" **2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.**" **

Yes Anne, we know that. Performing an emergency C-section while a mom is bleeding to death on the operating table in order to remove the placenta that ripped away from the uterine wall in an effort to save her and the baby is not an abortion. But apparently we have some people on here who think it is. That’s what the past 2 pages of this thread have been about.

 

[Corki]

Other: the doctor must work as hard as he/she can to save both of his/her patients. As long as he/she does his best and focusses his/her efforts that way, the rest is in God’s hands.

 

[catharina]

I said, I was going to leave, because I am upset by this thread now and it’s not because I can’t be right, but because I feel like you are not reading what I am writing.

I just don’t understand why you felt the need to post in RED that you presume to know what we meant, instead of asking for clarification. That is presumption, is it not?

Not to my knowledge.
No intent to be presumptious.
Yet, regarding this thread -
I’m sure you’ll do as you wish

 

[catharina]

Other: the doctor must work as hard as he/she can to save both of his/her patients. As long as he/she does his best and focusses his/her efforts that way, the rest is in God’s hands.

YES.
Always.

 

[heart4home]

Not to my knowledge.
No intent to be presumptious.
Yet, regarding this thread -
I’m sure you’ll do as you wish

Not to your knowlege?

No, intent to be presumptious??
However, you said
"Rence,do you actually believe that this is what the two posters were saying - or meant to say? **I certainly do not. Remember also their mention of the trisomies. How does a trisomy pregnancy injure a mother? It DOESN’T. **

You said you didn’t think we meant what Rence understood us to mean. That seems presumptive.

You said we mentioned Trisomies. Yes, and we both said it IS ABORTION

You asked how it injures the mother? Neither of us, said that it did.

 

[catharina]

Not to your knowlege?

No, intent to be presumptious??
However, you said
"Rence,do you actually believe that this is what the two posters were saying - or meant to say? **I certainly do not. Remember also their mention of the trisomies. How does a trisomy pregnancy injure a mother? It DOESN’T. **

You said you didn’t think we meant what Rence understood us to mean. That seems presumptive.

You said we mentioned Trisomies. Yes, and we both said it IS ABORTION

You asked how it injures the mother? Neither of us, said that it did.

You can decide anything “seems” presumptive.
That does not make it presumptive.

Do you understand that?

 

[Corki]

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 can give you a few that I have known about personally. One friend had an ectopic pregancy that lodged, not in the tube, but outside the uterous. The surgery to stop the hemmeroging that resulted ended with the death of the baby. Not abortive; not intended.

In another case, the mother had to have emergency surgery (I think it was appendix) and the trauma resulted in the loss of the baby. Not abortive.

Another mother needed anti-convulsive drugs that caused the loss of her child. Not abortive.

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?

Those who killed Jesus were not trying to save us. This is not a rational comparison.

Yes, trying to save the mother, even knowing it may result in the death of the child is not bad. It’s the direct killing of the child to save the mother that’s immoral.

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.

Being pro-life is not a numbers game. We value each life individually. It’s not moral to make decisions based on immoral acts that result in better numerical results.

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.

Doing nothing is not an option either. Your two options aren’t logical. The most obvious, and right solution is to do everyting to save both.

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.

Excellent (but sad) example.

Well I’ll make my leave here then, because all I have to add is the spiritual issue that a loving benevolent God freely choose to make the female body capable of putting the Catholic Church in a situation where it’s either save the mother and let a fetus with a zero % chance of surviving die, or let the mother bleed out killing the child with her.

I think an All-Knowing God would know of what would happen if he allowed these forms of diseases to occur to the female reproductive organs. Meaning he accepts the allowance of indirect abortions…or you know God just doesn’t exist.

God created man and woman perfectly. Once sin entered the world, that perfection faded. You could just as easily say that “your” God could never create someone who allows the body to get cancer of to have heart attacks.

 

[catharina]

I can give you a few that I have known about personally. One friend had an ectopic pregancy that lodged, not in the tube, but outside the uterous. The surgery to stop the hemmeroging that resulted ended with the death of the baby. Not abortive; not intended.

In another case, the mother had to have emergency surgery (I think it was appendix) and the trauma resulted in the loss of the baby. Not abortive.

Another mother needed anti-convulsive drugs that caused the loss of her child. Not abortive.

Those who killed Jesus were not trying to save us. This is not a rational comparison.

Yes, trying to save the mother, even knowing it may result in the death of the child is not bad. It’s the direct killing of the child to save the mother that’s immoral.

Being pro-life is not a numbers game. We value each life individually. It’s not moral to make decisions based on immoral acts that result in better numerical results.

Doing nothing is not an option either. Your two options aren’t logical. The most obvious, and right solution is to do everyting to save both.

Excellent (but sad) example.

God created man and woman perfectly. Once sin entered the world, that perfection faded. You could just as easily say that “your” God could never create someone who allows the body to get cancer of to have heart attacks.

Great post, corki.

 

[thirddec]

I have avoided posting till now but as a sister thread has arisen to promote this thread I shal copy what I posted there.

**I have avoided writing on this because of the fact that the total liberation of the horror of abortion was started by using these extreme cases to force people onto the pro abortion camp using good intentions to pave the way to hell.

Yes these issues will come up rarely and the Church should set up a series of spiritual advisors to help those affected in the same way every diocese is supposed to have an exorcist available and each case would be judged privately and appropriately by someone qualified to help.

But polls like these have been abused before so I wont take part**.

 

[catharina]

I have avoided posting till now but as a sister thread has arisen to promote this thread I shal copy what I posted there.

**I have avoided writing on this because of the fact that the total liberation of the horror of abortion was started by using these extreme cases to force people onto the pro abortion camp using good intentions to pave the way to hell.

Yes these issues will come up rarely and the Church should set up a series of spiritual advisors to help those affected in the same way every diocese is supposed to have an exorcist available and each case would be judged privately and appropriately by someone qualified to help.

But polls like these have been abused before so I wont take part**.

Agree that polls like these are so distasteful.

It’s the comments that go far afield though.
The comments can be so easily misunderstood.
These threads often come to this end.

Very sad.
Very futile.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I have taken out most of the bickering posts and opened the thread and am asking that posters limit their responses to the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is inappropriate to attack each other or call each other names, or be deliberately argumentative when the answers are available to us.

If the behavior continues, the thread will be closed permanently. I hope that this will not happen, as many people would benefit from what the church has to teach.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

An abortion is never allowed, ever. Now there is a difference between an abortion, which is a direct attack on a fetus, than treating the disease of a woman which results in the death of a fetus. We are allowed to treat the woman even if the treatment may result in the death of the fetus, as long as the fetus is not the target of the treatment. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the tubes may be taken out. The target is the tube. Of course the fetus will die eventually. But as long as its not the fetus per se that is being taken out (not that we have the technology for it anyway) then its fine. Same with cancer and chemo. The chemo is for the cancer, not the fetus.

 

[JReducation]

Please read Distinction between direct abortions and legitimate medical procedures .

My friends . . . I do this as my full-time ministry. As a matter-of-fact, my community was founded for the sole purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of Life. I have written several works on this and made many presentations on this subject. I know what I’m talking about. If you care to find out more about me and my work, I’d be happy to tell you in private. For the time being, I’d like to share some valuable information. However, let’s make it clear that while I’m willing to answer questions, I am unwilling to spend my time and effort talking to people who want to argue every point or challenge the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching on abortion is absolute and irrefutable. Therefore, it is infallible truth. **Truth does not need to be defended or justified. **

Therefore, I do not engage in such arguments. If someone does not believe that which is Truth, there is no time on my schedule for him or her. If you ask me a question, because you are in search of truth, I will be happy to answer it. On the other hand, if you just want to prove that your truth is truer than the revealed truth, I don’t have time for that. Take up someone else’s time.

The Church’s infallible teaching is that abortion is always evil. There are absolutely no exceptions to the rule. This was set in stone by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae. But it had been stated many times before that. Pope John Paul II finally made it a decree invoking the authority of Peter. There is no room in the Catholic Church for this question nor will the Church entertain the question ever again. People either accept it or reject and deal with the spiritual consequences to their souls.

Abortion is the deliberate, direct, intentional termination of the life of a child in his mother’s womb. This means that the intent is to kill the baby, regardless of the reasons. Whether the mother is bleeding to death or she simply does not want to have a baby, is irrelevant, if the intention is to kill the unborn child.

That being said, a medically necessary procedure that cannot wait until the child is born, may be morally justifiable, as long as the intention is to heal a medical problem NOT to kill an innocent life.

One must be absolutely certain that the procedure is medically necessary.

One must be absolutely certain that the procedure cannot wait.

One must be absolutely certain that the procedure does not intend to destroy the child.

One can foresee that the child will die as a result of the procedure, because one is unable to help the child, not because one desires to terminate the pregnancy.

There are certain medical procedures that are immoral, even when done with the best intentions. Any medical procedure that is unnecessary and that places either mother or child at risk is immoral.

The Church is also very clear that to be pro-life does not mean to save at least one life. To be pro-life means to love and respect life as God does. God so respected and loved humanity that he vested his eternal Son with human nature. It is life itself that God loves, not the life of one person. Therefore, it is not morally justifiable to say that one should perform a medical procedure to save the mother or the child, because at least we’re saving one life. Both lives are delightful in God’s eyes.

The Book of Genesis tells us that God delighted in his creation, not in one created being or created thing, but the whole of it.

In addition, no one’s life is more valuable than another person’s life. Therefore, it is evil to assume that the child’s life is more valuable than that of the mother, because the child has never been born. It is equally evil to say that the mother’s life is more valuable, because her other children and her spouse need her. We’re not talking about utilities. We’re talking about lives. To make such distinctions is a utilitarian approach to life. “Let’s pick the one that we believe is more necessary.” God does not call man into existence, because he’s necessary. He calls man into existence because he loves him and wants him to be happy with him forever in heaven.

In a crisis where mother and child are at risk, every possible means must be used to save both lives. This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Therefore, this poll is invalid, because it’s asking people to decide what the Church has already decided for us. We do not have the right nor the authority to decide anything different. There is only one truth. It is not up to us to decide what is truth. Truth is never up for debate. Though many people like to try it.

 

[JReducation]

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

 

[catharina]

Brother, regarding Posts # 39 and 40:
two perfect posts and I thank you.
Your presentations should help many.
God bless you.

 

[WiscConvert]

An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy in which the fetus implants outside of the uterine cavity. In almost all cases, these pregnancies are not viable, and if left untreated, the fallopian tube will eventually rupture, killing the mother and the fetus. Ectopic pregnancies may be treated by removing the portion of the fallopian tube where the fetus has implanted. Although this has the unintended side effect of killing the fetus, this treatment is sanctioned by Catholic teaching. There is no Catholic hospital in the country which will not perform this treatment in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

I could be wrong but I don’t believe there are any known medical conditions in which one can know in advance that it is possible to save either the baby or the mother but not both.