Are there any circumstances in which abortion is justified?

[SoCalRC]

The justifications typically used in support of salpingectomy on the principle of double effect are very weak and it is quite difficult to differentiate between that and MTX treatment in ectopic pregnancy. In fact it can be said that salpingectomy is even worse because it is both a direct attack on the unborn and an attack on the mother’s fertility. It is a difficult argument to say that removal of the tube with the baby inside is not a direct attack.

I would have to agree. From ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIRECTIVES FOR CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES:

1. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation. In this context, Catholic health care institutions need to be concerned about the danger of scandal in any association with abortion providers.

1. Catholic health care providers should be ready to offer compassionate physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual care to those persons who have suffered from the trauma of abortion.

1. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.

1. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

In light of #45 and #48, the seeming application of #47 seems particularly dubious for any form of preventive intervention. This also appears to be the case in Latin American countries where Catholicism is a stronger presence. In those cases, health care providers usually cannot intercede until an ectopic pregnancy results in an actual tubal rupture. Treatment of the internal bleeding is then deemed a more licit application of double effect (since the condition threatens the life of both patients).

That said, I have tremendous compassion for the individuals involved, patients, families, doctors. If anything it should be a wakeup call for Catholics. We, ourselves, have a difficult time fully embracing our own, expansive “right to life” teachings, so perhaps we should be more patient with and less judgemental of secular society.

 

[puzzleannie]

I’m not just talking deformed like a cleft pallet (sp?), or missing an arm. I’m talking about baby with no brains, baby’s who basically are just a hodgepodge of flesh (termed monsters), which bear little resemblance to a human. .

they are only termed monsters by the same people who propose to murder them because, in their eyes, the are less than human, as you say. if you are speaking of a molar pregnancy that is not a human being, but a clump of undifferentiated cells, so don’t muddy the issue.

 

[FCEGM]

I can see you can only answer with insults; that is in itself absurd. When you can respond with an answer with some substance, feel free to do so.

What I tossed out there is reality my friend. These are real scenarios that women do face. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and cast judgment. Now if you have actually faced this scenario and dealt with it, then I beg your pardon, but until then…

Difficult scenarios do not an option give to take the life of an unborn baby. For a dose of that reality of which you speak, listen to this true story of this young woman (daughter of two now-deceased friends of mine) who gave birth to TWO anacephalic babies.

ewtn.com/rock/files/past1.asp

Life on the Rock #541
Fr. Mark Mary w/ Joe and Patricia Brower.
Originally aired: 1/17/2008
Theme: A Heroic Couple in a Culture of Death

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I’m not just talking deformed like a cleft pallet (sp?), or missing an arm. I’m talking about baby with no brains, baby’s who basically are just a hodgepodge of flesh (termed monsters), which bear little resemblance to a human. It’s fair to let a mother carry it to term, let her be horrified when she sees it, only for it too die minutes after it’s born? Certainly, if she wants to carry it to term, thats her choice, but don’t you think at least in this instance, the mother should have the choice?

Take your blinders off for a second and think rationally.

1* Who has believed what we have heard? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected* by men; a man of sorrows*, and acquainted with grief; * and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Isaiah 53:1-3

 

[catharina]

SoCal - thank you so much for spending your time and energy in presenting the facts above. I’ve worked in pro-life for more than 30 years and this is the most data I’ve ever seen re Catholic institutions. While I’m certain that there are many that still “wait for the tubal rupture” it’s clear that the many are NOT all. Again thanks and bless you. Prayers.

 

[SoCalRC]

While I’m certain that there are many that still “wait for the tubal rupture” it’s clear that the many are NOT all. Again thanks and bless you. Prayers.

Actually, I’m not sure that any Catholic hospital in the US would ‘wait and see’. CHA advises against it, and most lay articles on the subject do as well.

Remember, Catholic hospitals still carry insurance, as do Catholic patients. If wait and see leads to a tubal rupture, intervention is more expensive and the prognosis for the mother is poorer (intercine bleeding can lead to organ damage, and the surgery generally results in partial sterility).

What we theologically want, and what makes sense is a pluralistic society are two different things. Plenty of patients (Catholic or otherwise) would not take kindly to ‘there was never a chance of saving the baby, but thankfully, instead of using the less expensive, less intrussive treatment we waited and you incurred massive surgical bills. And, BTW, you now have permanent kidney damage and will never have another chance to have children…’

So there is tremendous pressure on the heath care providers to balance Catholicism with their medical oaths - and the realities of society.

Under the circumstances, I think that the Church’s patience on the matter is understandable. The absolute ban with regards to maternal health is relatively new (dating only from about 1884). And, even with medical health care, the implications of strict adherence to the teaching is a pretty big jump for a good number of Catholics.

 

[mikew262]

I can see you can only answer with insults; that is in itself absurd.

Kind of like people who say “men shouldn’t force their ideas on women cause they don’t know what it’s like”, or “If you haven’t experienced it, you don’t know what you are talking about”.

Gee, another answer of substance.

 

[mikew262]

they are only termed monsters by the same people who propose to murder them because, in their eyes, the are less than human, as you say. if you are speaking of a molar pregnancy that is not a human being, but a clump of undifferentiated cells, so don’t muddy the issue.

The term “monster” is a fairly common term in the medical community for babies having these type of severe deformities.

 

[mikew262]

What is the point of asking controversial questions on this forum if the person who provides a response that many may disagree with gets pummeled by sarcastic and insulting comments? It gets really old.

In this case, I provided a real world answer concerning why some women may consider aborting. This was the question, people! You may disagree personally with the decision to abort in this scenario, ok, fine. Many women are courageous enough to give birth to a horribly deformed baby, many are not.

However, try to respond back with well thought out substantial comments, not with emotional, sarcastic and insulting ones. I, unfortunately chose to engage back with one of the posters, which I should not have, for that I was wrong. BTW, not everybody did this, but enough did to warrant me posting this.

Bottom line: This is a forum to discuss issues of the day, hopefully in a respectful and intellectual manner. There will always be disagreement, lets be grownup about it (and this includes me).

 

[puzzleannie]

The term “monster” is a fairly common term in the medical community for babies having these type of severe deformities.

no that is not a medical term
the medical term would be a precise description of their anomaly

neither is “vegetable” a medical term as applied to a human being. the medical term would precisely describe their physical and medical condition and prognosis

 

[mapleoak]

What is the point of asking controversial questions on this forum if the person who provides a response that many may disagree with gets pummeled by sarcastic and insulting comments? It gets really old.

In this case, I provided a real world answer concerning why some women may consider aborting. This was the question, people! You may disagree personally with the decision to abort in this scenario, ok, fine. Many women are courageous enough to give birth to a horribly deformed baby, many are not.

However, try to respond back with well thought out substantial comments, not with emotional, sarcastic and insulting ones. I, unfortunately chose to engage back with one of the posters, which I should not have, for that I was wrong. BTW, not everybody did this, but enough did to warrant me posting this.

Bottom line: This is a forum to discuss issues of the day, hopefully in a respectful and intellectual manner. There will always be disagreement, lets be grownup about it (and this includes me).

Actually your post (#26) was responded to with a parallel response. If you choose to take offense by that, that is up to you.

 

[SoCalRC]

no that is not a medical term
the medical term would be a precise description of their anomaly

neither is “vegetable” a medical term as applied to a human being. the medical term would precisely describe their physical and medical condition and prognosis

To be fair. Both ‘permanent vegative state’ and ‘persistive vegative state’ were once in wide use.

However, ‘monster’ has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a medical term.

 

[kettle]

The term “monster” is a fairly common term in the medical community for babies having these type of severe deformities.

I worked in the medical community between 1991 and 2007, and I’ve never heard “monster” used as a term, let alone a fairly common one.

 

[mikew262]

To be fair. Both ‘permanent vegative state’ and ‘persistive vegative state’ were once in wide use.

However, ‘monster’ has never, to the best of my knowledge, been a medical term.

I’ll reword, it may not be a medical term per say, but it is a term to describe severely deformed infants. See 2 references below.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/monster

Websters New World: A malformed fetus, one with an excess or deficiency of limbs or parts

 

[mikew262]

Actually your post (#26) was responded to with a parallel response. If you choose to take offense by that, that is up to you.

It was that and others. More the tone of the responses than anything else.

Why would anybody want to respond to a controversial question, if all he/she can expect in return for the most part is sarcasm and hostility?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The answer to post # 1 is 'NO"
Deacon Ed B