Abortion

[waxwings]

This is true, you can remove large portions of the liver and the remainder will function relatively normally. However, a growing, implanted embryo causes such extensive neovascularization (growth of blood vessels) that attempting to remove that portion of the liver would likely have catastrophic results in terms of blood loss. I’m not a general surgeon so I can’t say for sure.

Personally, if identified early enough I would just take methotrexate and go to confession later if I felt guilty. I realize this is probably the “wrong” answer but its what I would do, especially if I had other kids.

I hate to say it,but you know what the Church verdict would be before and after the removal,its just unthinkable to imagne,the kids, everything ,everybody involved ,and happening.The Church would say its sacrifice,and Jesus said ,if you love me take up your cross and follow me,and thats what being a Catholic is all about
Its all hypothetical but conceivable

 

[thewanderer]

In this miracle case,the embryo WASNT boring into the liver,if it had,both mother and embryo would have died so to remove the embryo to let the mother live would be direct abortion ,murder,automatic excommunication.
One again,please read Aussie Tich above —ewtn.com-----at the bottom of page

Sorry, but I never understand this argument. A direct abortion would be performing an action whose direct immediate result is the death of the unborn child. cutting up a child a la d&c is clearly a direct abortion, ingesting poison that will directly kill the child is clearly a direct abortion. Moving the child from one location to another is not a direct abortion. Yes, the child will ultimately die from lack of nutrition etc, but it does not die as a direct result of moving it from one location to another, it dies as an indirect result. Because of this it is absolutely morally permissible, under the principle of double effect, to remove such an infant when the lives of both mother and child are at stake.

 

[MacQ]

I’m no doctor, but I’m pretty sure that diseased portions of a liver can be removed and the rest of the liver still functions adequately. Not sure how that’s any different than a Fallopian tube ectopic pregnancy.
.

You are correct…in fact a very sizeable portion of the live can be removed.
Liver tissue regenerates as well.

 

[Alindawyl]

Wow wow really impressive! And definitely proof that both can survive.

Something that is all too often not thought about when the phrase “the mother’s life is in danger” is used, is the mortality rate in that situation. The way it’s presented, it seems like those who use the phrase assume it’s 100%. Or maybe at least over 50%. But when it comes to abdominal pregnancies, doctors don’t know. They estimate that it’s as low as 1% or as high as 20%, but they aren’t sure. Abdominal pregnancies are so rare that it’s difficult to make any sort of certain statement.

So an abdominal pregnancy does not present a simple binary choice between getting an abortion on the one hand or the mother dying on the other hand. Just as there is no guarantee the child will die in such a pregnancy, there is no guarantee the mother will die either. And with the high end estimated at 20%, the far greater likelihood is that the mother will NOT die.

When a doctor says there is a high risk of death or some other complication, it is good to ask exactly what the chance is. Sometimes they consider 5% or less to be high. It’s like when they say it’s incredibly rare for the mother and child to both survive an abdominal pregnancy. It’s incredibly rare not because of threats to the mother, but because in the vast majority of such cases the baby dies naturally within the first few weeks. It’s not easy for a child to develop outside of the safe environment of the uterus.

 

[MacQ]

In this miracle case,the embryo WASNT boring into the liver,if it had,both mother and embryo would have died so to remove the embryo to let the mother live would be direct abortion ,murder,automatic excommunication.
One again,please read Aussie Tich above —ewtn.com-----at the bottom of page

Indeed, this was a miracle case. One salient point, it seems to me is that there was no way to know ahead of time that it would turn out this way, and the most likely scenario would result in risk or death to the mother and the embryo. Such a situation would place the mother (both parents actually) in extreme fear and duress, which would negate the idea of willfully seeking an abortion.

More arguable, therefore, is your notion of “automatic excommunication”.

 

[waxwings]

Indeed, this was a miracle case. One salient point, it seems to me is that there was no way to know ahead of time that it would turn out this way, and the most likely scenario would result in risk or death to the mother and the embryo. Such a situation would place the mother (both parents actually) in extreme fear and duress, which would negate the idea of willfully seeking an abortion.

More arguable, therefore, is your notion of “automatic excommunication”.

You raise 2 great point there
Duress,At present its horrific to just think about it.Parents would have to be in this position to know what their mental state of mind would be.If embryo was carried out under duress ,just think how your conscience would before and after abortion,just think how your would be if you let your wife die in front of you knowing the embryo would die anyway.
If aborted under duress i doubt if there would be any excommunication .Two Popes were accused of heresy ,and Fundamentalists stated their cases as proof of not being infallibility,but both signed documents under extreme duress,so infallibility was not an issue here

 

[waxwings]

Indeed, this was a miracle case. One salient point, it seems to me is that there was no way to know ahead of time that it would turn out this way, and the most likely scenario would result in risk or death to the mother and the embryo. Such a situation would place the mother (both parents actually) in extreme fear and duress, which would negate the idea of willfully seeking an abortion.

More arguable, therefore, is your notion of “automatic excommunication”.

I would also think if abortion in this case was carried under extreme duress and the parents were excommunicated (not automatic) it could be a wrong decision due to miss information or suchlike in this case,if both parents died ,it would not be in mortal sin,only God knows what is in the mind.
There is a video on Catholic Answers, the guy with the beard talking ,about wrong excommunication

 

[MacQ]

I would also think if abortion in this case was carried under extreme duress and the parents were excommunicated (not automatic) it could be a wrong decision due to miss information or suchlike in this case,if both parents died ,it would not be in mortal sin,only God knows what is in the mind.
There is a video on Catholic Answers, the guy with the beard talking ,about wrong excommunication

Yes…it seems to me that this is a very different situation than actively seeking to abort. I am not clear on all the details of “excommunication”. but I think that it must require due diligence in individual cases. I suspect it has been wrongly applied in some instances.
I know for a fact that it is widely misunderstood.

 

[MacQ]

You raise 2 great point there
Duress,At present its horrific to just think about it.Parents would have to be in this position to know what their mental state of mind would be.If embryo was carried out under duress ,just think how your conscience would before and after abortion,just think how your would be if you let your wife die in front of you knowing the embryo would die anyway.
If aborted under duress i doubt if there would be any excommunication .Two Popes were accused of heresy ,and Fundamentalists stated their cases as proof of not being infallibility,but both signed documents under extreme duress,so infallibility was not an issue here

Thanks. I used the catechism definition of mortal sin as a guidepost. State of mind and duress certainly play a part in that.
Catholicism allows for situations outside the norm, and should teach us to discern, and to leave some judgements to God alone.
There are folks however (especially with regard to abortion) who like to present extreme and rare cases to try to justify it.
Regarding the Popes, Infallibility is a different matter, I think. It was clarified in Vatican II…but there is still wide misunderstanding about it.

 

[thistle]

In this miracle case,the embryo WASNT boring into the liver,if it had,both mother and embryo would have died so to remove the embryo to let the mother live would be direct abortion ,murder,automatic excommunication.
One again,please read Aussie Tich above —ewtn.com-----at the bottom of page

On a separate issue automatic excommunication only applies if the person committing a mortal sin with such a penalty knows it carries the penalty of excommunication. If not they are not automatically excommunicated.

 

[waxwings]

On a separate issue automatic excommunication only applies if the person committing a mortal sin with such a penalty knows it carries the penalty of excommunication. If not they are not automatically excommunicated.

But if a person aborts an embryo under no duress ,it is automatic excommunication

 

[waxwings]

Thanks. I used the catechism definition of mortal sin as a guidepost. State of mind and duress certainly play a part in that.
Catholicism allows for situations outside the norm, and should teach us to discern, and to leave some judgements to God alone.
There are folks however (especially with regard to abortion) who like to present extreme and rare cases to try to justify it.
Regarding the Popes, Infallibility is a different matter, I think. It was clarified in Vatican II…but there is still wide misunderstanding about it.

There has been no infallible definition regarding abortion that i know of,correct me if there is?
Also,St Peter was under duress when he denied Jesus,as were 2 Popes under duress later who are still wrongly being accused of not being infallible

 

[MacQ]

There has been no infallible definition regarding abortion that i know of,correct me if there is?
Also,St Peter was under duress when he denied Jesus,as were 2 Popes under duress later who are still wrongly being accused of not being infallible

The teaching of the Church on abortion is clear. It’s wrong.
The discussion here is about whether this particular instance would be viewed the same way as one where the person deliberately sought to end the pregnancy. When the mother’s life is in question, that’s a different situation. Just as the definition of ‘mortal sin’, there are qualifications to it, which include whether the person was mentally capable, and free to do otherwise.

Infallibility is a different issue… the subject of great misunderstanding. It has been defined, but people persistently misunderstand it…
It only applies when a Pope speaks ‘ex cathedra’ (and usually on consultation with the bishops) about a matter of faith or morals, and is very rare. This has only happened about 3 times in the history of the church.

 

[waxwings]

The teaching of the Church on abortion is clear. It’s wrong.
The discussion here is about whether this particular instance would be viewed the same way as one where the person deliberately sought to end the pregnancy. When the mother’s life is in question, that’s a different situation. Just as the definition of ‘mortal sin’, there are qualifications to it, which include whether the person was mentally capable, and free to do otherwise.

Infallibility is a different issue… the subject of great misunderstanding. It has been defined, but people persistently misunderstand it…
It only applies when a Pope speaks ‘ex cathedra’ (and usually on consultation with the bishops) about a matter of faith or morals, and is very rare. This has only happened about 3 times in the history of the church.

When i posted a first thread to open this debate,i mentioned direct abortion,as seen on EWTN…com, that was the discussion,i never mentioned duress, or infallibility(which i understand) the debate evolved further leading to discuss duress,which is not mentioned in EWTN…com,or any other Catholic website i have read. I am thankful for duress being mentioned for i never thought about it,and that is more knowledge for me when debating direct and indirect abortion with anyone

 

[thistle]

But if a person aborts an embryo under no duress ,it is automatic excommunication

Not necessarily.

For a person having an abortion (assuming no coercion or mental incapacity) 2 things are necessary for that person to be excommunicated.
First they would have to have committed a mortal sin and second they would have to know that such a mortal sin carried the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Just because someone commits an act which is of grave matter it does not mean they have committed a mortal sin. For a mortal sin to be committed 3 conditions must be satisfied:

• Must be of grave matter
• Full knowledge (It must be known to the person that the act is of grave matter)
• Full consent of the will ( Knowing the act is of grave matter the person deliberately goes ahead anyway and commits the act).

If a person does not know an act is of grave matter then they do not commit a mortal sin by carrying out the act.

This is similar to automatic excommunication and we will use abortion as the example. If a person has an abortion and knows that is a sin of grave matter then they commit a mortal sin but if they did not know there was a penalty of automatic excommunication attached then they are not excommunicated.
Even further than that if a person had an abortion but did not know that was a sin of grave matter then not only would they not be excommunicated they would not have committed a mortal sin.

 

[waxwings]

Not necessarily.

For a person having an abortion (assuming no coercion or mental incapacity) 2 things are necessary for that person to be excommunicated.
First they would have to have committed a mortal sin and second they would have to know that such a mortal sin carried the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Just because someone commits an act which is of grave matter it does not mean they have committed a mortal sin. For a mortal sin to be committed 3 conditions must be satisfied:

• Must be of grave matter
• Full knowledge (It must be known to the person that the act is of grave matter)
• Full consent of the will ( Knowing the act is of grave matter the person deliberately goes ahead anyway and commits the act).

I understand all you say.But i am referring to direct abortion where mother knows under no duress it is mortal sin , to save her own life and willfully goes ahead with abortion,this is mortal sin,and automatic excommunication.
ewtn.com/library/PROFILE.INDIRECT.TXT----Look at the end of this debate on direct abortion from liver in abdomen .
Read,Catholic Answers–Apart From abortion,are there any other sins that incur automatic excommunication .(Having an abortion means automatic excommunication from the Church)

If a person does not know an act is of grave matter then they do not commit a mortal sin by carrying out the act.

This is similar to automatic excommunication and we will use abortion as the example. If a person has an abortion and knows that is a sin of grave matter then they commit a mortal sin but if they did not know there was a penalty of automatic excommunication attached then they are not excommunicated.
Even further than that if a person had an abortion but did not know that was a sin of grave matter then not only would they not be excommunicated they would not have committed a mortal sin.

 

[thistle]

waxwings:
It is not automatic excommunication if the person committing the sin has no knowledge of such a penalty.

 

[waxwings]

It is not automatic excommunication if the person committing the sin has no knowledge of such a penalty.

But it is if they have,and fully aware ,and under no duress