Abortion to save mother's life - A canard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Kearns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John_Kearns

Guest
I seem to remember reading once that there aren’t really any fatal medical conditions for which abortion, in and of itself, is the cure. For example, tubal pregnancy requires the removal of the tube, the death of the unborn child is an unintended, albeit unavoidable consequence.

But, I’m not sure that this is true, so I’m asking here. Is anyone aware of such a condition?
 
John Kearns:
I seem to remember reading once that there aren’t really any fatal medical conditions for which abortion, in and of itself, is the cure. For example, tubal pregnancy requires the removal of the tube, the death of the unborn child is an unintended, albeit unavoidable consequence.

But, I’m not sure that this is true, so I’m asking here. Is anyone aware of such a condition?
Click to expand...
Certain forms of aggressive cancer. While the chemotherapy will kill the child on its own I believe that it is not advisable to have this happen. I believe that if the mother decides for the chemotherapy treatment that an abortion would be called for first.

I believe this would go for any other medical treatment that would end the childs life but is required to save the mother’s life immediately.
 
In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the baby would not live in any case because it is not properly attached to the uterus. So, if the tube isn’t removed, not only will the baby die, as it most certainly will anyway, the mother will die, as well.
 
It is always safer to try to deliver a baby rather than abort it. Thie child might not be developed enough to survive on its own and may die, but premie technology is improving all the time.
 
T.A.Stobie:
It is always safer to try to deliver a baby rather than abort it. Thie child might not be developed enough to survive on its own and may die, but premie technology is improving all the time.
Click to expand...
I would hope the day will come when that sweeping generalization will undoubtedly be true, but as a life scientist, I am not at all persuaded that day has yet come.

There are many situations which a Catholic father can pray to be delivered from ever having to face. Right now, the prospect of having to choose between his wife, the mother of his present children, and a child yet to be born is certainly one of them.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
T.A.Stobie:
It is always safer to try to deliver a baby rather than abort it. Thie child might not be developed enough to survive on its own and may die, but premie technology is improving all the time.
Click to expand...
However, this is not yet possible with a tubal pregnancy, which is what the OP asked about:
Tubal pregnancy, occurs when a fertilized egg is implanted outside the uterus, typically in one of the fallopian tubes. Once conception has taken place the now fertilized egg will usually take four or five days to travel from the ovary to the uterus. However, should the tube be blocked or damaged, or the egg simply fails to reach the uterus, the egg may be implanted in the tube and continue to develop there instead of the uterus.
Click to expand...
About one of every 50 pregnancies results in a tubal pregnancy. Unfortunately, no one has yet figured how to transplant the embryo from the fallopian tube to the uterus, so unfortunately the pregnancy needs to be terminated. If it is not picked up and treated, the embryo will simply continue to grow where it is. The damage that can be caused from an tubal pregnancy going unnoticed is serious and in fact can end in death.
Click to expand...
From: Pregnancy-info.net.
 
40.png
Della:
However, this is not yet possible with a tubal pregnancy, which is what the OP asked about:
Click to expand...
Actually the OP just used a tubal pregnancy as an example of the only case he is aware of where the child must die to save the mother’s life yet it is not done so by an abortion but by the actual procedure that saves the mother’s life.

I believe the OP was asking if there really is any case where an abortion must be done to save the mother’s life.

In my example the abortion is not necessary but I think it would be advisable.

In response to T.A.Stobie, a child is not viable though the whole term of the pregnancy. While one could wait until the child is viable and then deliver it before any treatment, I think it is best to leave it to the doctors involved as to when a woman should start a treatment that could end the child’s life.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
In response to T.A.Stobie, a child is not viable though the whole term of the pregnancy. While one could wait until the child is viable and then deliver it before any treatment, I think it is best to leave it to the doctors involved as to when a woman should start a treatment that could end the child’s life.
Click to expand...
I did not say that the child had to be able to survive, but rather in severe cases where it is necessary to safe the woman’s life, it can be delivered only to die today after even a short period such as a few days in the case of tubal pregnancies. If there is any chance of the child living, all effort should be used to save the child after delivery (or removal as some see it.)
 
John Kearns:
I seem to remember reading once that there aren’t really any fatal medical conditions for which abortion, in and of itself, is the cure. For example, tubal pregnancy requires the removal of the tube, the death of the unborn child is an unintended, albeit unavoidable consequence.

But, I’m not sure that this is true, so I’m asking here. Is anyone aware of such a condition?
Click to expand...
Someone from the AMA has testified that there is no medical condition that late term abortion is necessary for perhaps that is what you were thinking of.
 
T.A.Stobie:
I did not say that the child had to be able to survive, but rather in severe cases where it is necessary to safe the woman’s life, it can be delivered only to die today after even a short period such as a few days in the case of tubal pregnancies. If there is any chance of the child living, all effort should be used to save the child after delivery (or removal as some see it.)
Click to expand...
Can they even induce labor in a pregnant woman who has only been pregnant for a couple of weeks?

Again, I leave this to the experts in the field.
 
In the movie “Steel Magnolias”, it was uncontrolled diabetes that killed the pregnant Julia Roberts.
 
40.png
Seatuck:
Someone from the AMA has testified that there is no medical condition that late term abortion is necessary for perhaps that is what you were thinking of.
Click to expand...
  1. Gunshot wound to the abdomen where the uterus is knicked. while not ruptured, continuous movement of the baby most likely would cause a rupture. it is completely up to the surgeon whether or not he induces labor, but if the uterus ruptures, both will die.
at least if you induce labor, the mother will live and the child has a fighting chance.
  1. pregnant women in ventricular tach or fibrillation. protocol calls for giving Amioderone which blocks inactivated sodium channels and slow activating potassium channels. VERY harmful to a fetus, if not fatal in repeated doses. Bretylium is wicked on a fetal nervous system, as is procainamide.
but yet again, which is better a dead mother AND baby, or a dead baby but the mother lives? in EMS we almost always consider the child of a pregnant women to be secondary. the mother is a full grown, developed adult with a statistically significantly higher chance of survial. we play the best odds and the statistics. if it comes down to a choice, i always go with the mother. prenates just cant handle it, and almost always die, especially in trauma.
  1. cardioversion of a pregnant woman. delivering 60-100 joules is enough to knock a younger fetuses’ heart into V FIB or asystole.
  2. transcutaneous pacing of a pregnant women.
while these are not abortions, they can often result in the death of the fetus. its not our direct intent to kill the child, but as side effects, a fragile nervous system and overall general health of a prenate just cannot handle the treatments.

HOWEVER, because of cutting edge research and enlightened minds, we are a few years away (as paramedics) from being able to use supersaturated oxygen solutions in the field whereby we intubate a prenate and infuse its lungs with the super O2 solution. oxygen literally falls out of solution in the lungs right into alveoli, as well as the liquid keeping the lungs from drying out.

hopefully the moronic, paranoid medical directors out there will have the guts to let us medics actually perform a c-section and do all this. or maybe not, some of those MDs have a Maestra Deo complex, and are afraid to let anyone else do anything.
 
  1. why wouldn’t they just do a c-section? labor would just cause more distress to mother and infant.
There should be no confusing the issues. The church has been clear that live saving action can be taken to save the life of the mother even if it puts the baby at risk. No one should even be arguing this . All your examples fit in with moral theology in this instance. An abortion with no other medical intervention would not save the life of the mother in any of your descriptions.

I should have been more specific with my comment . I did have late term partial birth abortion in mind. The AMA did specifically say there is no reason to do that .
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Actually the OP just used a tubal pregnancy as an example of the only case he is aware of where the child must die to save the mother’s life yet it is not done so by an abortion but by the actual procedure that saves the mother’s life.

I believe the OP was asking if there really is any case where an abortion must be done to save the mother’s life.

In my example the abortion is not necessary but I think it would be advisable.

In response to T.A.Stobie, a child is not viable though the whole term of the pregnancy. While one could wait until the child is viable and then deliver it before any treatment, I think it is best to leave it to the doctors involved as to when a woman should start a treatment that could end the child’s life.
Click to expand...
Abortion is never advisable. You leave the child’s life in God’s hands. Trying to get the child to viability is the moral choice unless the uterus is what is diseased or the cancer is so aggressive strong medicines must be used now. You still leave the baby in God’s hands and do whatever medical support for mother and child you can do.
 
Seatuck said:
1) why wouldn’t they just do a c-section? labor would just cause more distress to mother and infant.

There should be no confusing the issues. The church has been clear that live saving action can be taken to save the life of the mother even if it puts the baby at risk. No one should even be arguing this . All your examples fit in with moral theology in this instance. An abortion with no other medical intervention would not save the life of the mother in any of your descriptions.

I should have been more specific with my comment . I did have late term partial birth abortion in mind. The AMA did specifically say there is no reason to do that .
Click to expand...

Exactly, direct abortion is intrinsically evil.
 
Thanks to all. The responses of an obviously well-educated group assures me that abortion, in and of itself, is never necessary to save the life of a mother.
 
I’ve advised my husband that if anything happens to me, then I’m to be kept on life support until the baby can be taken. Its my opinion that the baby is more important than me.
 
“It is always safer to try to deliver a baby rather than abort it. Thie child might not be developed enough to survive on its own and may die, but premie technology is improving all the time.”

It seems to me that is a MEDICAL judgement best left to the doctors and the parents involved. And what is your medical qualification for this claim? Are you an MD?
 
My mom is an OB nurse. They recently had a woman come in with HELP syndrome. In this case the mother would die in a matter of hours without delivering the baby (20 weeks). In that case the baby dies as well. So, they delivered the baby. The baby died as they expected. The mother lived.

There is also a woman in their unit who has toxemia. The baby is 24 weeks now–22 weeks when she first came in. The mother’s water broke so the baby has no amniotic fluid–thus the lungs have an even greater chance of not developing. The mother is becoming more ill with each day. The heroic mom is holding out against her doctor’s orders. The mother’s life is still endangered.
The baby has very little chance of survival if delivered. (this is a real situation–PRAY!!)

But does premature delivery count as abortion? :confused:

I know these cases where the baby is delivered early to save the mother is very upsetting to my very Catholic mom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top