Abortion

[waxwings]

It is conceivable that an Embryo can fall into the abdomen on to the liver ,bores into the liver which cannot be removed ,which will result in certain death of the Mother and Embryo.
The Mother could be saved if Embryo is removed,but in no circumstance can the Embryo be removed for that would be direct abortion,and immediate automatic excommunication.

 

[AussieTrish]

Some links

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940
johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Mother could be saved if Embryo is removed,but in no circumstance can the Embryo be removed for that would be direct abortion,and immediate automatic excommunication.

I’m not quite sure what you are saying. It is permissible to remove an embryo which has no chance of survival, but otherwise would result in the death of the mother. Such an event occurs most commonly in a uncommon problem called an “Ectopic pregnancy” (the embryo implants into a Fallopian tube instead of the uterus). There is no hope for the baby, and the mother will die unless the baby is removed.

The surgical removal of the embryo is permitted because the purpose of the procedure is to save the mother, not to kill the embryo. This is sometimes called the “double effect,” and it is morally permissible. The Church considers intent very seriously. If the intent is to save the mother, and not to kill the embryo.

The same is true of painkillers in medical environments. Painkillers make us more comfortable, but reduce our cardiac and pulmonary (and digestive) capacity. Administering painkillers to terminal patients may hasten their deaths, but the painkillers were not prescribed for that purpose, but were prescribed for a morally acceptable cause (to alleviate pain and suffering). It is morally permissible to administer such painkillers to terminally ill patients if the primary purpose is to alleviate pain (an act of charity) and not to kill the patient (a misguided act of charity).

If the doctor perscribed painkillers to provide relief from pain and suffering, then the action is morally permissible, even if the doctor is “pretty sure” that the painkiller would result in the death of a patient, and that he knew of no other (less fatal) way to alleviate this suffering.

 

[Petaro]

Both Aussietrish and David’s posts give wise and true answer to this terrible dilemma. May God be with baby, mother and doctor and assisting staff in this difficult decision.

 

[waxwings]

I’m not quite sure what you are saying. It is permissible to remove an embryo which has no chance of survival, but otherwise would result in the death of the mother. Such an event occurs most commonly in a uncommon problem called an “Ectopic pregnancy” (the embryo implants into a Fallopian tube instead of the uterus). There is no hope for the baby, and the mother will die unless the baby is removed.

It is NOT permissible in this conceivable instance to remove an Embryo which has no chance to live.Removal of liver results in instant death to Mother,and Embryo,removal of Embryo only is abortion,removal of fallopian tube doesn’t kill Mother,and is Indirect

The surgical removal of the embryo is permitted because the purpose of the procedure is to save the mother, not to kill the embryo. This is sometimes called the “double effect,” and it is morally permissible. The Church considers intent very seriously. If the intent is to save the mother, and not to kill the embryo.

Removing Embryo from liver would be Direct Abortion,so Embryo would die along with Mother.So a Father with 5 or more children would have to watch his wife die and rear his children himself.If the Embryo had been removed it would have died,thus Direct Abortion,but Mother would have lived and excommunicated.This is where your Catholic Faith would be tested to its limits
There was a million to one case miracle where the Embryo landed on the Mother’s liver and was born perfect and healthy.Mother never even knew she was pregnant

The same is true of painkillers in medical environments. Painkillers make us more comfortable, but reduce our cardiac and pulmonary (and digestive) capacity. Administering painkillers to terminal patients may hasten their deaths, but the painkillers were not prescribed for that purpose, but were prescribed for a morally acceptable cause (to alleviate pain and suffering). It is morally permissible to administer such painkillers to terminally ill patients if the primary purpose is to alleviate pain (an act of charity) and not to kill the patient (a misguided act of charity).

If the doctor perscribed painkillers to provide relief from pain and suffering, then the action is morally permissible, even if the doctor is “pretty sure” that the painkiller would result in the death of a patient, and that he knew of no other (less fatal) way to alleviate this suffering.

Read;https;//www.ewtn.com/library/PROFILE/INDIRECT.TXT
I will be grateful to you for your reaction

 

[waxwings]

Both Aussietrish and David’s posts give wise and true answer to this terrible dilemma. May God be with baby, mother and doctor and assisting staff in this difficult decision.

May God be with baby mother etc,its God who would create this terrible dilemma(,for what reason?/) which would be very very rare but conceivable Any decision to remove Embryo in this case would be direct abortion,murder,excommunication,so what would your decision be if you were the Father left with large family to rear?.There was a miracle case a baby in this situation landed on liver and lived but i would have to check if it bored into liver,dont think it did,Mother never knew he was pregnant

 

[waxwings]

Some links

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940
johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

This is where Catholic Faith would be tested to its lmits. moreso if Father would be left with large family to rear
Facts are Embryo is human being which will die,inside Mother,on feeding from liver,Mother die to.,to abort living embryo is to shorten its life ,Abortion
Put it this way.If a Mother and child 1 year old were definately going to die with a disease,it would be murder to kill the child to shorten the childs life Euthenasia,same would apply inside Mother Embryo on liver,Abortion

 

[ms83]

Waxwings I believe you are missing Aussie and Dave’s point.

In your scenerio you are neglecting the moral understanding in this situation which has to be taken into account. You have to look at the case itself, this is not a typical pregnancy this is a rare case where the body is not working properly alot like an Ectopic pregnancy, taking this into account I believe it would be classified the same as the Ectopic pregnancy. My reasoning is this the Ectopic pregnancy is in itself the same as your scenerio both embyros are not “positioned” correctly, because we know the answer to the Ectopic pregnancy and the removal of the embyro being permissable. You may say but in my scenerio it is possible for the embryo to survive, I believe the same coulde be said in the Ectopic pregnancy, although the probability is mostly likely extremely rare for the child to survive are you prepared to say the survivability of the embryo in an Ectopic pregnancy is impossible? If not the your answer to your question is the is would be permissable to remove the embyro even if it had not entered the liver yet.

This is my understanding only I do not in anyway have the complete knowledge or authority to make a justification in either instance.

 

[waxwings]

Waxwings I believe you are missing Aussie and Dave’s point.

In your scenerio you are neglecting the moral understanding in this situation which has to be taken into account. You have to look at the case itself, this is not a typical pregnancy this is a rare case where the body is not working properly alot like an Ectopic pregnancy, taking this into account I believe it would be classified the same as the Ectopic pregnancy. My reasoning is this the Ectopic pregnancy is in itself the same as your scenerio both embyros are not “positioned” correctly, because we know the answer to the Ectopic pregnancy and the removal of the embyro being permissable. You may say but in my scenerio it is possible for the embryo to survive, I believe the same coulde be said in the Ectopic pregnancy, although the probability is mostly likely extremely rare for the child to survive are you prepared to say the survivability of the embryo in an Ectopic pregnancy is impossible? If not the your answer to your question is the is would be permissable to remove the embyro even if it had not entered the liver yet.

This is my understanding only I do not in anyway have the complete knowledge or authority to make a justification in either instance.

You will get your answers above, in the three websites Aussie has published above.Please look them up,especially the end of ,EWTN.com
Th fallopian can be removed to save Mother life,embryo will die,but its indirect and allowed
The liver case would be direct abortion .killing embryo directly by removing it from liver a liver cant be rermoved (like a a fallopian tube)it would result in instant immediate death

 

[marymary1975]

You will get your answers above, in the three websites Aussie has published above.Please look them up,especially the end of ,EWTN.com
Th fallopian can be removed to save Mother life,embryo will die,but its indirect and allowed
The liver case would be direct abortion .killing embryo directly by removing it from liver a liver cant be rermoved (like a a fallopian tube)it would result in instant immediate death

I need to understand something here. How an embryo is going to end up in a liver if the uterus is a closed place. I just can’t make sense of it and I think the answer you got from David was precisely because there is no way unless there is human artificial hand involved that an embryo can end up in a liver. Not understanding

 

[Alindawyl]

It is conceivable that an Embryo can fall into the abdomen on to the liver ,bores into the liver which cannot be removed ,which will result in certain death of the Mother and Embryo.
The Mother could be saved if Embryo is removed,but in no circumstance can the Embryo be removed for that would be direct abortion,and immediate automatic excommunication.

Well, instead of leaving this in the purely conceptual realm of abstract intellectual consideration, where we can craft a thought experiment with whatever constraints we feel like imagining, how about we instead look to the real world for actual examples of what it really looks like when this situation really happens? For example, this article from 2003:

Liver pregnancy

Or this article from 2011:

Pregnancy outside uterus

This is why I always ask, when someone says that abortion should be permitted when the mother’s life is in danger, to give a real world example of a case where the mother’s life is in danger such that abortion is a necessity in order to save her life. These two examples show that abortion is NOT the absolute necessity some people make it out to be when they start throwing around “But, to save the mother’s life…”

Obviously not all ectopic pregnancies will result in a successful delivery. For one, over 95% of all ectopic pregnancies take place in the fallopian tube rather than the abdomen, and there is no room for the baby to develop in the fallopian tube. For another, as of 2003, the baby died in 10 of the 14 (at the time) known instances of abdominal pregnancy. Still, when the total number you’re looking at is 14, saying something like “Only 28.5% of those babies lived” is meaningless. The numbers are so small and the condition so rare to begin with that we can’t realistically infer anything from it… other than, since it isn’t zero, an abortion is NOT absolutely necessary for the mother to live if she has an abdominal pregnancy.

 

[marymary1975]

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

 

[MacQ]

An embryo implanted as you describe is not a viable pregnancy.
Secondly,in such an odd/rare circumstance, the Church would certainly favor saving the mother by removing the embryo from her liver.
No excommunication needed. I believe this would be done at a Catholic Hospital.
What am I missing?.

 

[MacQ]

I need to understand something here. How an embryo is going to end up in a liver if the uterus is a closed place. I just can’t make sense of it and I think the answer you got from David was precisely because there is no way unless there is human artificial hand involved that an embryo can end up in a liver. Not understanding

The uterus isn’t a closed place…the fallopian tubes are the upper entry to it…and there is a gap between the fallopian tube and the ovary, which embryo’s can fail to traverse, and get loose in the abdomen.

 

[manualman]

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.

The child isn’t a disease, but the tragic implantation in the liver would constitute a diseased liver. This isn’t remotely similar to the usual “It would make me depressed and maybe suicidal” sneak tactic that is usually meant when people bring up “health and life of the mother” exceptions.

Why does God allow it to happen? Same reason God allows all sorts of suffering. We caused it all via original sin. None of this was meant to be this way. And yet, God has a way of offering us Grace sufficient to turn suffering into opportunities for conversion. Weird, but true.

 

[waxwings]

An embryo implanted as you describe is not a viable pregnancy.
Secondly,in such an odd/rare circumstance, the Church would certainly favor saving the mother by removing the embryo from her liver.
No excommunication needed. I believe this would be done at a Catholic Hospital.
What am I missing?.

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

 

[waxwings]

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.

The child isn’t a disease, but the tragic implantation in the liver would constitute a diseased liver. This isn’t remotely similar to the usual “It would make me depressed and maybe suicidal” sneak tactic that is usually meant when people bring up “health and life of the mother” exceptions.

Why does God allow it to happen? Same reason God allows all sorts of suffering. We caused it all via original sin. None of this was meant to be this way. And yet, God has a way of offering us Grace sufficient to turn suffering into opportunities for conversion. Weird, but true.

You raise a good point.My personal opinion.If the parts of diseased liver could be removed, to save mother life and embryo died because of it,it would look like an indirect abortion,but ask a priest to make sure,but i am talking here about where there is no chance of the mother and embryo living,unless the embryo is removed to save mother which is direct abortion

 

[waxwings]

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

Proof that 2 miracle cases happened,but i am talking about when its impossible for them to happen,and conceivable they can happen.
Read Aussie Tich ----ewtn.com----above

 

[THP]

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.

The child isn’t a disease, but the tragic implantation in the liver would constitute a diseased liver. This isn’t remotely similar to the usual “It would make me depressed and maybe suicidal” sneak tactic that is usually meant when people bring up “health and life of the mother” exceptions.

Why does God allow it to happen? Same reason God allows all sorts of suffering. We caused it all via original sin. None of this was meant to be this way. And yet, God has a way of offering us Grace sufficient to turn suffering into opportunities for conversion. Weird, but true.

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.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You may say but in my scenerio it is possible for the embryo to survive, I believe the same coulde be said in the Ectopic pregnancy, although the probability is mostly likely extremely rare for the child to survive

It is medically impossible for an embryo implanted in a Fallopian tube to survive. That’s mainly because the mother will not survive more than a few days, at best. It is non-elective emergency surgery (drugs can also be used in some cases, but the baby will not survive). Mothers may not even be aware of the situation until it is already an emergency and they have become symptomatic (and have probably not understood the serious nature of the symptoms until they became more apparent).

Such surgery is morally permissible because the intent is to save the mother’s life, not to kill the baby (which is what we usually mean when we use the word “abortion”). The baby dies in the process (the “double effect”) but the baby is gonna die no matter what.