Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicdude942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicdude942

Guest
A question was recently posed to me about abortion. The question was, in essence, if a mother were pregnant with a child and she had two choices: either abort the child and save her own life or do nothing and allow herself and the child to die, what should she do? The questioner took a pragmatic view to the situation asserting that it would be better to protect two lives rather than loose both. I understand the church considers abortion to be morally wrong in all cases, no matter what. So, I suppose my question is how does the church justify the death of both two over the death of only one? I suppose the answer would lie in the fact that both lives are equal and we cannot violate natural law, but is there a way to use logic to explain the answer, as my friend is an avid logician.

Thank you for your time
 
I think it’s that the principle of double effect applies. If doing a procedure on a woman would cause the death of her unborn baby, but save her life, it is morally permissible to do it even though the child will die. You just can’t kill the kid, then perform the procedure. The child must die as a result of the procedure, not direct abortion. The Church does NOT teach the deaths of both are preferrable to the death of only one. This should satisfy your avid logician friend. Further, i think once people fully understand the Church’s teachings, they understand there is perfect logic behind them.
 
40.png
catholicdude942:
A question was recently posed to me about abortion. The question was, in essence, if a mother were pregnant with a child and she had two choices: either abort the child and save her own life or do nothing and allow herself and the child to die, what should she do? The questioner took a pragmatic view to the situation asserting that it would be better to protect two lives rather than loose both. I understand the church considers abortion to be morally wrong in all cases, no matter what. So, I suppose my question is how does the church justify the death of both two over the death of only one? I suppose the answer would lie in the fact that both lives are equal and we cannot violate natural law, but is there a way to use logic to explain the answer, as my friend is an avid logician.

Thank you for your time
Click to expand...
Someone has already mentioned that if a procedure to save the mother’s life indirectly resulted in the death of the baby, this wouldn’t be the same thing as direct killing. However, there might be cases where no such procedure is possible, where the only way to save the mother would require directly killing the baby. I think it is important to distinguish between the natural death of the mother & baby vs. the deliberate killing of one of them. In other words, the Church wouldn’t need to justify the death of two, since the disease, not the Church, killed them. However, anyone intervening by directly killing the baby would then be responsible for that action.
 
Actually, as far as I know, it is okay to perform a procedure in order to save the mother’s life, even if it means that the baby is going to die. The intent here is to save a life not kill a life. It’s like a policeman shooting someone to save the lives of others from a mass murdereer about to kill. If it is stictly necessary to save life, then it is okay.

This sounds like situational ethics (‘the only case where abortion is permissible is…’), but actually it’s not. It shouldn’t be called abortion if it is actually a procedure to save a mother’s life, and there is no other way to save her life.
 
i don’t know about the specific standings of the Church or anything, but I know I would rather simply put both the child’s life and my own life in God’s hands…if I have to die for my child to be born, I’ll gladly take that risk…if anything needed to save my life would result in the death (direct or indirect) of my child’s life, i would never even think about it…if God wants us both to live, that’s how He’ll have it, and if He needs one of us to die, that’s how He’ll have it as well.
 
As long as a procedure is not directed at the fetus, it is morally allowable. That being said, many doctors will be too liberal in defining the danger of a pregnancy, so that if something does come up, they won’t get sued.
 
Perhaps an analogy would help.

You proposed a scenario that is very rare, but two things must be kept in mind.

First, almost nothing is 100% certain medically speaking, so your scenario should probably suggest that it is “highly likely” that both would die.

Second, if we believe that an actual human life begins at conception, then a child in the womb is intrinsically as valuable as a child of two or three years old.
That said, let’s imagine a woman and her child are drowning. The woman knows that it is “highly unlikely” that she will be able to swim to safety while carrying the child, yet she will have the strength to do so if she lets the child go. Wouldn’t, by the reasoning in the first post, the utilitarian option be for her to let go of her daughter and start swimming?

Unthinkable, right? But if we understand an unborn child to be an actual human baby, this is what we are asking. Any reputable doctor will attempt to defy the odds and save BOTH. While I can’t put myself in the pregnant woman’s shoes, as a Father, I could never imagine allowing the death of my child, born or unborn, even if it could somehow result in my own death or life. The end never justifies the means.
 
I think an aspect worth considering is this: does the woman have any other chlidren, especially young ones, who will be without a mother if she were to die? I can imagine situations where the mother would have to give substantial weight to the needs of young children already born and not simply decide to risk her own life for the sake of the unborn life.

God save us all from having to make such difficult choices

-Jim
 
40.png
trogiah:
God save us all from having to make such difficult choices

-Jim
Click to expand...
Yes indeed…and normally he does! It is a very rare thing for sure (besides tubal pregnancies which are common) for a woman to get into say her third trimester…and suddenly need an abortion to save her life, so low that I have never seen a statistic (probably because at that point it is actually called premature birth) . It is also very rare for a woman to become pregnant after a rape the statistic is below 1%…something like .09%

AND YET…these are the same scenarios that govern our laws! The same ones that get thrown up over and over…to the point of nausea…I’d sooner get struck by lightning than have such a difficult decision to make. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
trogiah:
I think an aspect worth considering is this: does the woman have any other chlidren, especially young ones, who will be without a mother if she were to die? I can imagine situations where the mother would have to give substantial weight to the needs of young children already born and not simply decide to risk her own life for the sake of the unborn life.

God save us all from having to make such difficult choices

-Jim
Click to expand...
Truly God will provide, it’s all in His plan. If He will save the mother, He will save the mother…if she should die, He clearly has another plan…I just don’t think it’s ever our place to put weight on any life, just leave it to God, He knows better than we ever can what’s best for our lives and the lives of our children, born or unborn.
 
40.png
FCEGM:
Saint Gianna Molla comes to mind. . .

gianna.org/
Click to expand...
Francis, thanks for posting this! When I 1st started reading this thread, I was racking my brain trying to think of this modern day Saint. And then I came to your post.

Thank you and God Bless!
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top