Abortion

[dominikus28]

Is abortion wrong in all cases?

What about:
-If the mother will die during birth and the baby survive?
-If the mother and the baby will die at birth?

 

[fellowChristian]

I believe that would be one of the Ten Commandments #5 if your Catholic ,#6 if your Protestant.

Exodus 20: 13 "You shall not murder.

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: “so that her child comes out”], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Ex. 21:22–24).

The Didache

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

Jerome

“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

Dictionary.com - Cite This Source
**kill **
–verb (used with object) 1. to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.

We try to preserve life. Care for those in need. Try to save both the women and the baby. But ultimately it is up to God.

 

[1ke]

Is abortion wrong in all cases?

Yes.

What about:
-If the mother will die during birth and the baby survive?
-If the mother and the baby will die at birth?

A doctor’s responsibility is to both patients-- the mother and the child. He must do all he can to save both.

 

[SumEns]

Is abortion wrong in all cases?

What about:
-If the mother will die during birth and the baby survive?
-If the mother and the baby will die at birth?

To the second question I say this is a very unlikely situation. In a vast number of cases where the lives of both are on line the baby can be saved.

With respect to the first question however, that is a different story. I have asked the same question to a learned Father in a local church that I consider a good friend. The way he put it is that it is a hard choice: lose your wife, or lose your child. The unfortunate answer seems to be, considering “thou shall not kill”, is that we allow the wife to die and the child to live. To me this is hard to swallow, yet at the same time there is no way I would choose to have my now living breathing healthy baby to be killed. This is a confusing and heart-wrenching question, and the answer seems plain enough, but that doesn’t make it any less painful.

Don’t know if this helped, but I tried.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is abortion wrong in all cases?

What about:
-If the mother will die during birth and the baby survive?
-If the mother and the baby will die at birth?

both of these deal with hypothetical cases, and such a diagnosis is never definite, but a matter of probability. The killing by direct abortion is definite. Rephrase your hypotheses to
the mother will probably die during birth and the baby has a good chance of survival.
It is highly probable that both the mother and baby will die during childbirth.

In either of those cases to say: one or two probable deaths vs one definite irrevocable death is to propose and condone direct murder of an innocent life.

Or to make it more understandable rephrase your hypothesis.

If Jake is born, Mary will probably die (Mary and Jake do not have to be in the same room at the time or even related.)
Therefore let us kill Jake.

If Jake is born and if Mary gives birth, it is probable that both will die. Therefore, let us kill Jake.

 

[Em_in_FL]

On a personal note…

My MIL had some serious issues while she was pregnant with my husband. Her doctors literally YELLED at her to have an abortion.
“You WILL DIE if you attempt to have this child” and “I wash my hands of your decision”…
My father-in-law said his last goodbyes as she went into labor…

We enjoy telling this story over dinner with my MIL on a weekly basis…
So even doctors can be wrong!

 

[ufstudent]

A diagnosis saying that either the baby will not survive, or neither baby or mother will survive CAN be made accurately. Medicine has advanced significantly, and a doctor can correctly tell you the likelihood of the mother and baby’s survival.
And of course doctors can be wrong… thats why there is malpractice insurance, duh. Doctors can be wrong about anything. But more times than not- they are right.
Statistically, 50% of pregnancies end in first term miscarriage. That is half of ALL pregnancies (all races, ages and religions). Many women do not even know they are pregnant, and believe their miscarriage is just their period. You can check this on medical websites.
So if aborting a first term fetus is the equivalent to “murder”, then why does God “murder” half of all babies?

 

[fix]

A diagnosis saying that either the baby will not survive, or neither baby or mother will survive CAN be made accurately. Medicine has advanced significantly, and a doctor can correctly tell you the likelihood of the mother and baby’s survival.
And of course doctors can be wrong… thats why there is malpractice insurance, duh. Doctors can be wrong about anything. But more times than not- they are right.
Statistically, 50% of pregnancies end in first term miscarriage. That is half of ALL pregnancies (all races, ages and religions). Many women do not even know they are pregnant, and believe their miscarriage is just their period. You can check this on medical websites.
So if aborting a first term fetus is the equivalent to “murder”, then why does God “murder” half of all babies?

Spontaeous abortion is morally different from direct abortion. Do you deny intention and means play important roles in moral acts?

 

[1ke]

Statistically, 50% of pregnancies end in first term miscarriage

Statistically, 100% of people die.

So if aborting a first term fetus is the equivalent to “murder”, then why does God “murder” half of all babies?

God does not “murder” babies in the womb any more than he “murders” grandma when she dies of old age or “murders” Uncle Joe whose appendix bursts, or Cousin Sue who has cancer.

A baby that dies in the womb dies of a **natural **cause-- which of course we **all **do… unless someone murders us.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Since medical science can save both the mother and child in difficulties, this question in my mind is really mute because of the very low number of people who face it today — it is virtuly non-existent.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

God does not “murder” babies in the womb any more than he “murders” grandma when she dies of old age or “murders” Uncle Joe whose appendix bursts, or Cousin Sue who has cancer.

Good answer! And one must also note that God is the Author of Life. It is His option to give or take, not ours.

 

[Eileen_T]

The Catholic Church along with most other religions, recognises the moral principal of what is called the “double effect.”

In the case of abortion, this means that any treatment done to save the life of the mother that also results in the death of an unborn child is not truly an abortion, since the death of the child was not the primary intention.

In such a case, even if the death of the child is a foregone conclusion, the death was an indirect effect of the surgical procedure.

Such cases are extremely rare. Some of the treatments that may indirectly kill an unborn child include certain cancer treatments such as the removal of a cancerous or highly traumatised uterus, removal of a fallopian tube, and in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

It is expected however, that the doctor must delay treatment as long as possible in order to try to save the child as well as the woman.

The Principal of “Double Effect” applies only in the case of an actual and proximate threat to the life of the mother. It does not apply under the loose assertion that “all pregnancies threaten the life of the mother because pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion.”

• life.org.nz/abortionreligiouskeyissuesromancatholicism.htm

Alan Guttmacher (of Planned Parenthood) said in his book “Abortion Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow” The Case for Legalized Abortion Now which was published in 1967:

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life”

50 years later, we are even more experienced in getting the mother hrough pregnancy.

In my experience, I have noticed that doctors frequently take a “worst case scenario” attitude, and in New Zealand they don’t even have to worry about being sued when something goes wrong.

 

[havemercy]

Does anyone know if Hydrocephalus is always fatal in the child’s case, or is there modern technology that makes it possible for the child to live? If the child were to die within the womb because of being hydrocephalic, or after having been born for several hours, would an abortion been seen as “indirect” or “direct”? I don’t see how it could be anything other than direct abortion, because nothing save the child is being targeted (i.e. not cancer or a tumor).

Man, being a moral theologian would sure be helpful.

 

[1ke]

Does anyone know if Hydrocephalus is always fatal in the child’s case, or is there modern technology that makes it possible for the child to live? If the child were to die within the womb because of being hydrocephalic, or after having been born for several hours, would an abortion been seen as “indirect” or “direct”? I don’t see how it could be anything other than direct abortion, because nothing save the child is being targeted (i.e. not cancer or a tumor).

Man, being a moral theologian would sure be helpful.

If you kill the baby purposely, yes that is an abortion.

The child will die naturally, but one may not hasten that death or cause it purposely.

 

[boppaid]

\The way he put it is that it is a hard choice: lose your wife, or lose your child. The unfortunate answer seems to be, considering “thou shall not kill”, is that we allow the wife to die and the child to live.(

See, this is what I don’t understand. If we shouldn’t murder, why is the baby’s life trumping the mother’s? Thou shall not murder…the baby or the mother. Both lives are just as valuable, so shouldn’t the choice be up to the family?

 

[YADA]

See, this is what I don’t understand. If we shouldn’t murder, why is the baby’s life trumping the mother’s? Thou shall not murder…the baby or the mother. Both lives are just as valuable, so shouldn’t the choice be up to the family?

The baby’s lifer is not trumping the mother’s. We are all going to die…as the saying goes, “nobody gets out of this alive”

You cannot choose to end someone’s life to save anothers.

Why let is stop at childbirth - why is it only the innocent unborn who have no value?..say a family can only feed one child but has two…there is absolutly no way to feed more than one child. Now you can try to feed two and both starve or terminate one and allow one to live…thats the choice…would you say let the family decide?

You see, by letting nature takes its course and doing all that you can possibly do for both lives, you act justly. To directly interfere is to put yourself in God’s place [God being the author of life]. We are not the ones to say who lives and who dies based upon a perceived value.

And this is just directed toward innocent life [becasue if someone brokke into my house and threatened my family, I would use any and all means of defense including lethal means if necessary]

 

[apricot_yogurt]

This dilemma is interesting, as many forms of abortion, particularly later in gestation involve the woman *actually giving *birth-albeit to a dead baby. So if the risk is childbirth-well it seems that there is probably very little way around that later on-so why cut the baby’s cord in utero, or inject pottasium chloride into a baby’s heart? And then induce labour upon a woman’s body-from personal experience labour which is induced is more painful and subject to more complications.

 

[boppaid]

The baby’s lifer is not trumping the mother’s. We are all going to die…as the saying goes, “nobody gets out of this alive”
You see, by letting nature takes its course and doing all that you can possibly do for both lives, you act justly. To directly interfere is to put yourself in God’s place [God being the author of life]. We are not the ones to say who lives and who dies based upon a perceived value.

And this is just directed toward innocent life [becasue if someone brokke into my house and threatened my family, I would use any and all means of defense including lethal means if necessary]

Well, trying to save the baby and letting the mother die is not letting “nature take it’s course”. If nature was taking its course, both would die.

 

[Spirithound]

Does anyone know if Hydrocephalus is always fatal in the child’s case, or is there modern technology that makes it possible for the child to live? If the child were to die within the womb because of being hydrocephalic, or after having been born for several hours, would an abortion been seen as “indirect” or “direct”? I don’t see how it could be anything other than direct abortion, because nothing save the child is being targeted (i.e. not cancer or a tumor).

As with any malady, there are still severe cases in which it will be fatal, but people have been surviving hydrocephalus for at least 33 years (several good friends of mine), or 22 years (me). Modern shunts are getting smaller and smaller.
In the case you have described, there is no abortion being performed. If a baby dies in surgery, post-birth, that is not abortion, and is probably not murder.

 

[YADA]

Well, trying to save the baby and letting the mother die is not letting “nature take it’s course”. If nature was taking its course, both would die

But that is the point, you don’t just try to save the baby and not the mother…you try to safe both…mother and child…if you are working to safe both and one dies, you have done all thatyou can do…t actively kill one for the sake of the other is not acceptable…that is murder.

In that case you have decised to de-value one life over the other, nevert morally acceptable. This is what the mugger soes when he kills you for you wallet…the mugger has decised that his desire for your wallet trumps your right to life…

We need to actively work to safe both mother and child, not intervene with murder to procure an out come…the life of one and the death of the other…