Another abortion question

[fish90]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

 

[1ke]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

Abortion is never moral.

If a woman who is pregnant is in some sort of medical distress, both the woman and the child are the patients. The doctor is obligated to do all he can to save both patients.

If the baby is delivered and cannot survive the doctor should do all he can. If the baby dies it is not the intended or desired outcome.

 

[allhers]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

I am curious to know what grave threat she could have FROM the pregnancy, as you said. So, I’ll just watch for now and see what kind of replies you get.:compcoff:

 

[fish90]

I do not know what other medical problem a pregnant woman could have before the viability of the baby. All I know is ectopic pregnancy and HELP syndrome (I think it comes when the child is viable, though .)

 

[Bluegoat]

Preeclampsia and conditions related to it might cause them to deliver before the fetus is fully mature, or pregnancy inducted hypertension. Typically, it would be after the baby was considered “viable” but that is a somewhat elastic term. A baby at 37 weeks may not have fully developed lungs, and complications from that could end in babies death in some cases.

Also, a mom needing immediate treatment for cancer might choose to try to deliver a very early baby even with a small change it might live, rather than take the treatment while pregnant which might be fatal or debilitating to the fetus. It would be a hard decision even to know what would be the best bet for the baby.

There are a few others. I think they are fairly rare, but they do exist.

 

[dmar198]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

The mother would have two options: (1) She could choose to try to save her own life, and if the child died in the process this would be tragic, but not immoral – as another poster explained, though, this is different from an abortion because the doctor’s job was to do all that he could to SAVE BOTH.

The mother’s other option would be to die so that her child might have a better chance at surviving. She would not be required to do this; but this choice would be as commendable as the choice of a woman who would jump in front of a bus to push her child out of the way, for that too is a commendable deed, though not something necessary.

I hope that helps. God bless!
-Dmar198

 

[yablabo]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

There is a moral guide on this and similar issues called the principle of double effect.

Using this principle, one can find that the woman can receive treatment to regain her health which can result in the death of the fetus, but only if the intent of the treatment is directed only toward the good effect of the woman regaining her health and that she have sufficient reason to act. The woman is not necessarily expected to die.

In order to employ this principle…one must go through the qualifications of the specific moral issue at hand.

1. The course of action must be either good or neutral.
2. The good effect of the action must follow the action at least as immediately as the evil effect. (If the good effect comes later, then, one has broken the moral precept not to do evil in order for good to come of it.)
3. The intent must be directed solely to the good effect of the action.
4. There must be sufficient reason to permit the evil effect of the action. The good effect MUST outweigh the bad effect.

I hope this helps you in the future as well as now!

– Nicole

 

[yablabo]

There is a moral guide on this and similar issues called the principle of double effect.

Using this principle, one can find that the woman can receive treatment to regain her health which can result in the death of the fetus, but only if the intent of the treatment is directed only toward the good effect of the woman regaining her health and that she have sufficient reason to act. The woman is not necessarily expected to die.

In order to employ this principle…one must go through the qualifications of the specific moral issue at hand.

1. The course of action must be either good or neutral.
2. The good effect of the action must follow the action at least as immediately as the evil effect. (If the good effect comes later, then, one has broken the moral precept not to do evil in order for good to come of it.)
3. The intent must be directed solely to the good effect of the action.
4. There must be sufficient reason to permit the evil effect of the action. The good effect MUST outweigh the bad effect.

I hope this helps you in the future as well as now!

– Nicole

 

[Reuben_J]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

Ectopic pregnancy is actually not a pregnancy in the sense that it is not a normal pregnancy. In ectopic pregnancy the fetus will waste away after conception and the pregnancy is **doomed to fail **, sorry about the layman term. The fetus after conception needs to attach itself to the wall of the uterus where it will be nourished from the nutrient that flows from the mother’s womb. In ectopic pregnancy the fetus does not get implanted on the wall of the uterus but somehow got caught along the fallopian tube - a very minute vessel where the woman ovum pass through to the uterus. In other word it is not viable - this pregnancy will not lead to birth.

In this case trying to save the fetus does not arise since it is abnormal pregnancy; a medical condition not unlike any other malfunctions and sicknesses that we may experience from time to time.

If you are found to be with ectopic it would be advised to deal with it as soon as possible so as to avoid complication and danger to the woman concerned.

God bless.

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

The case of double effect was well presented.

An ectopic pregnancy has no chance of being successful and will come to an end, intervention will likely be needed.

Saints such as Gianna Molla and a number of others who have not been canonized, knew they had a cancer that was life threatening. They put their lives on the line to give their child life. That is heroic.

 

[Oreoracle]

1. There must be sufficient reason to permit the evil effect of the action. The good effect MUST outweigh the bad effect.

This idea seems to contradict the Church’s claim that its moral code is absolute and deontological. “The good effect MUST outweigh the bad effect” assigns value to effects, making the ethic consequential, and allowing one rule to be broken in favor of obeying another rule makes the value of the rules relative to one another. (One rule can be “more important” than another.)

 

[Bluegoat]

I have to say, I find the rule on ectopic pregnancy a bit - misguided. I certainly agree with the Church that the pregnancy involves a real soul, and that if it were possible, it would be morally imperative to try to save the baby. And generally I think the way they look at the problem of direct and indirect action is solid and also useful.

OTOH, we know that now, there is no way to do this. An ectopic pregnancy cannot be successful at this time.

However, the ruling of the Church is that it is acceptable to remove the affected tube to save the mother from a rupture, which they say is the cause of the danger to her. Of course this also results in the destruction of the embryo.

But, the mother cannot take a drug that will flush the embryo from her system, because that is considered to be directly attacking the embryo. (There can be advantages to the mother with this method - she keeps her tube and avoids surgery, which is more dangerous.)

But I just think - either way - intent - to save mom - is the same. Either way consequences to baby are the same. The only difference is consequences to the mother. In this case where I find the difference between what the Church says is direct and indirect action seems so abstracted that it no longer fits with what is actually happening.

I also, along the same lines, wonder about what happens in those cases when the embryo implants outside the tube, but not in the uterus. In such a case it is still not a viable pregnancy, and may still need to be removed or it will endanger the mother. But in such a case, I think - this is where I am not quite sure - one would HAVE to directly remove the embryo - it wouldn’t be a matter of removing the surrounding organs. I can’t imagine anyone would say do nothing. Which makes the tube scenario seem even more strangely inappropriate to me.

 

[Debra_C]

I am curious about when the woman has a grave threat to her health from the pregnancy before the baby is viable. I do know that in ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube can be removed with the baby inside., but not in other cases. Is the woman expected to die? Can anyone answer this?

but not in other cases… what other cases? The reason treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion is because the intent is to save the mother’s life, when she cannot possibly continue the pregnancy. It is not possible for the baby to gro to maturity in the fallopian tubes. The tubal implantation is a direct and immediate threat to the mother’s life from early in pregnancy, and it is not possible to save the baby with current medical technology. Therefore the loss of the baby in this instance is a regrettable tragedy, not an intentional abortion. The same theological reasoning would be applicable to any similar situation. The intent must not be to destroy the baby’s life, but to save the life (or lives) that can be saved. Later in pregnancy, a premature delivery can be done so that the mother can be treated and medical personal do the best they can for both.