Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter dominikus28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Two things, real quick. One is that if we allow the mother to die for the sake of the child living, we are not guilty of murder. Murder is an intentionally malicious act of the will aimed at causing death. Our goal in this scenario would be to help as much as we can, and do what we must do, even if it is not an easy choice.

Second, go Aquinas, we have the Principle of Double Effect where we judge what we should do based off of the following, knowing that there will be a good effect, and a bad effect:
  1. The nature of the act is itself good (here saving the childs life)
  2. The intention is for the good effect and not the bad.
  3. The good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect
  4. The good effect does not go through the bad effect. (see Wikipedia, that is where I got this).
This may not seem intially clear, but take a good look. Sometimes we have to do something we cannot fathom in order to save a life. Hope this helps.
 
dominikus28 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes, abortion is always wrong and in ALL cases. If the mother will die during birth (who knows this?) it is still wrong. If the mother and the baby WILL die at birth, it is still wrong. One cannot say that “since my neighbor is going to die anyway, I am free to hasten his death and kill him.”
Eileen_T said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is all too easy to say that a treatment is required to save the life of the mother. It is a very grave situation indeed that would need remedial measures such that the benefit of such measures outweighs the gravity of the resultant death of the unborn child. If one were to lose an arm if treatment were not administered which would result in the unborn childs death, saving an arm does not trump the death of the child.
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.
Click to expand...
Ectopic pregnancy in and of itself is not a pathology to be remedied.
The Principal of “Double Effect” applies only in the case of an actual and proximate threat to the life of the mother.
Click to expand...
The babies life is no less important than the life of the mother. We could reverse that to say “The Principal of Double Effect applies only in the case of an actual and proximate threat to the life of the unborn child.” In no case would it be acceptable to kill the mother in order to save the life of the baby and vice-versa.
I am not trying to argue here, but only to make sure it is realized that there is a shift in our culture to loosely apply the logic of “Double Effect” to suit the situation.

One way of looking at it is in the situation where the mother had a physical trauma of such magnatude whereby loosing a lot of blood, she would surely die if a C-section were to be performed. If nothing is done, both people will die. The scenario is would seem to say that a C-section may be perfomed to save the life of the baby, with the unintended result being the death of the mother. Now we can shift the details a little and suppose the mother will survive if the baby is terminated. In the first scenario, no one is murdered. In the second scenario, someone is murdered.
 
boppaid said:
But neither is the mother’s life less important than the life of the baby. Very touchy situation, indeed.
Click to expand...
This only seems to be “touchy situation” or a “moral dilemma” when one of the two persons is not yet born. As if a preborn person is somehow different or lacking the same inherent dignity as a born person-- or as you have phrased it “more” or “less” important.

If a mother and small child are in a lifeboat, and supplies indicate that the mother and child will both surely die before rescue, is the mother justified in throwing her child overboard and saving herself?

Who’s life is more “important” and who’s life is less “important” in that scenario?
 
Heres a poem about it-

Mummy, I am happy,
I’m safe withen your womb,
I look forward to being born,
I’ll be coming out now soon.
Thank you for creating me,
I come from God above,
I’m a lovely little angel,
and I give you all my love.
I listen to your heart,
and it helps me go asleep,
I feel nice and safe and warm,
and I slumber, soft and deep.

Mummy, what is happening?
why are we in this place?
Mummy,they are hurting me!
They’re cutting up my face!
Mummy,can’t you stop them?
I wish that I could cry,
oh, Mummy, can’t you stop them?
Why don’t you even try?
Mummy, they are killing me,
and now I’m almost dead,
They’ve ripped by hands to pieces,
and they’re cutting off my head!
Mummy, I am dying-
they are ripping me apart!
There goes my shiny eyes,
and there goes my little heart.

Mummy, it was awful,
and I felt a lot of pain,
mummy, what was that for?
You have killed me quite in vain.
I never did you wrong at all,
I loved you,loved you so,
Tell me, how did I deserve that?
Oh, mummy, I don’t know.
I loved you, and I trusted you,
I wished to be your friend,
but now you’ve gone and killed me,
what a bitter, bloody end.
 
Back in the day, years ago there existed pregnancy conditions that still are around today but medically it was harder to treat those conditions to keep the pregnancy healthy. Those included gestational diabetes and other conditions including different blood types of the babies.

Today that is not the case. There is no condition known that will cause a woman to die during birth and for the baby to survive. The closest thing to it is cancer of the uterus. However the Church doesn’t allow abortion in this case.

The only medical condition that exists where the baby WILL die is called an ectopic pregnancy. That occurs when the baby implants in the falopian tubes instead of the uterus. The baby isn’t aborted but removed through the belly button. The baby isn’t murdered but dies after a few hours from lack of oxygen. However a prolife doctor will allow the parents to actually spend this time with their baby. The baby is usually bouncing around having fun in the sac actually, strangest thing.

A doctor who isn’t prolife will tear that baby to schreds. Pretty sad.

So now you know the medical issues about abortion. The only time EVER that an abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life is if the baby has died inside of her. She can die if the baby isn’t removed. In that case a prolife doctor will lovingly remove the baby but do so with the utmost respect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top