Are there any times when abortion is allowed?

[sidetrack]

Just what say before I go on I’m totally againest abortions.However I’ve heard that there are times when doing so might save the mothers life because (due to some complication) she can die as well.Would it be allowed in that instance because of the(dare I say brutal Hobson choice) of having to eliminate a life to save another instead of letting both be lost?..If this is so allowed ,that REALLY makes me curious as to what kind of complications would put a women in this situation (information on that would be very much appreciated) and how it can be prevented.Does the Church allow this?.If not then what’s it’s stand in this scenerio?.Would the women and child be allowed to die because of like an “assumption of risk” that comes with being pregnant?(I’m EXTREMELY sorry if that is offensive and/or sexist in any way).Thank you very much so for your time.

 

[BigFellaMick]

Thats a solid question and difficult for me to answer. As with many of my posts lately, I’m sure someone who knows definitively will be along directly to shine some light on this. But since I’m here I’m gonna take a crack at it. I would think that under no circumstance would abortion be ok, regardless of what doctors say. No matter how bleak the prognosis there’s no guarantee that the woman will die giving birth to the child. If we decided to abort a child to save a mothers life out of fear of what doctors say that shows that we don’t trust God to handle the situation. Given how sacred life is I would guess that under no circumstances would it be ok to throw it away, even at the possible cost of her mothers life. Its hard to chalk it up to Gods will should they both perish in the process but then theres the whole argument, when its your time to go its your time to go. Faith in God above ALL things. That’s my position. If anyone has anything to add to or counter that with I would be happy to hear others opinions on this rather hot button issue.

 

[Corki]

No, it is not ever moral to directly kill an innocent child, even for the perceived good of saving the mother’s life. In such a case, the only moral choice is for the doctor to aggressively try to care for BOTH of his patients. It is also moral to delay as long as possible and to deliver the child early, once it is past the point of viability, even if this poses risks to the child.

 

[JReducation]

Just what say before I go on I’m totally againest abortions.However I’ve heard that there are times when doing so might save the mothers life because (due to some complication) she can die as well.Would it be allowed in that instance because of the(dare I say brutal Hobson choice) of having to eliminate a life to save another instead of letting both be lost?..If this is so allowed ,that REALLY makes me curious as to what kind of complications would put a women in this situation (information on that would be very much appreciated) and how it can be prevented.Does the Church allow this?.If not then what’s it’s stand in this scenerio?.Would the women and child be allowed to die because of like an “assumption of risk” that comes with being pregnant?(I’m EXTREMELY sorry if that is offensive and/or sexist in any way).Thank you very much so for your time.

There is absolutely no single possible exception to the moral law. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances, regardless of who’s at risk.

If there is a risk to the mother, the physician has a moral obligation to try to save both lives. He may never choose one over the other. To do so is murder. If one or both lives are lost in the attempt, we commend both souls to the mercy of God.

In the event that the child is viable outside the womb, labor can be provoked or a C-sec may be performed. However, the physician must be certain that the child has reached viability. Let’s say that the child is 35 weeks, gestational age, there is a good chance that this child will live outside the womb. But this is very risky, because one is speculating. It is best to wait to get as close to term as possible.

There are situations in which the phyisician must perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother, when such a procedure cannot be postponed. In that case, even if the death of the child is foreseeable, but there is no intent to terminate the child’s life, this is not an abortion. For example, removing a cancerous uterous that has a child inside, because it cannot wait, is not intended to kill the child, but to remove the failing organ. The death of the child is foreseeable and unavoidable, but not intended.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the removal of the tube, when the situation becomes critical, is not an abortion. However, removing the child from the tube is an abortion. The intent of the latter is very clear, to save the tube at the expense of the child. A choice is being made and the child is the sacificial lamb.

Whereas, killing the child to lower the mother’s BP is murder. The intent there is to kill one person to save another. This is not the same as removing an organ.

This is not a Catholic position. This is natural law reavealed to all men of reason. The Church recognizes the voice and will of the Creator as he speaks through natural law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jfmarm81]

Very informative, wonderful answer, as always.

 

[Monica4316]

There is absolutely no single possible exception to the moral law. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances, regardless of who’s at risk.

If there is a risk to the mother, the physician has a moral obligation to try to save both lives. He may never choose one over the other. To do so is murder. If one or both lives are lost in the attempt, we commend both souls to the mercy of God.

In the event that the child is viable outside the womb, labor can be provoked or a C-sec may be performed. However, the physician must be certain that the child has reached viability. Let’s say that the child is 35 weeks, gestational age, there is a good chance that this child will live outside the womb. But this is very risky, because one is speculating. It is best to wait to get as close to term as possible.

There are situations in which the phyisician must perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother, when such a procedure cannot be postponed. In that case, even if the death of the child is foreseeable, but there is no intent to terminate the child’s life, this is not an abortion. For example, removing a cancerous uterous that has a child inside, because it cannot wait, is not intended to kill the child, but to remove the failing organ. The death of the child is foreseeable and unavoidable, but not intended.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the removal of the tube, when the situation becomes critical, is not an abortion. However, removing the child from the tube is an abortion. The intent of the latter is very clear, to save the tube at the expense of the child. A choice is being made and the child is the sacificial lamb.

Whereas, killing the child to lower the mother’s BP is murder. The intent there is to kill one person to save another. This is not the same as removing an organ.

This is not a Catholic position. This is natural law reavealed to all men of reason. The Church recognizes the voice and will of the Creator as he speaks through natural law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[yinekka]

For these and other bioethics questions you might like to check out the National Catholic Bioethics Center

ncbcenter.org/

Fr Tad Pacholczyk from the NCBC speaks regularly on Catholic Answers Live on his Bioethics For The Rest of Us programme.

I have learnt alot about these difficult questions of our day from Fr Pacholczyk’s programme. He has the ability to simplify difficult issues without losing any of the main points.

 

[domandcarols]

There is absolutely no single possible exception to the moral law. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances, regardless of who’s at risk.

If there is a risk to the mother, the physician has a moral obligation to try to save both lives. He may never choose one over the other. To do so is murder. If one or both lives are lost in the attempt, we commend both souls to the mercy of God.

In the event that the child is viable outside the womb, labor can be provoked or a C-sec may be performed. However, the physician must be certain that the child has reached viability. Let’s say that the child is 35 weeks, gestational age, there is a good chance that this child will live outside the womb. But this is very risky, because one is speculating. It is best to wait to get as close to term as possible.

There are situations in which the phyisician must perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother, when such a procedure cannot be postponed. In that case, even if the death of the child is foreseeable, but there is no intent to terminate the child’s life, this is not an abortion. For example, removing a cancerous uterous that has a child inside, because it cannot wait, is not intended to kill the child, but to remove the failing organ. The death of the child is foreseeable and unavoidable, but not intended.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the removal of the tube, when the situation becomes critical, is not an abortion. However, removing the child from the tube is an abortion. The intent of the latter is very clear, to save the tube at the expense of the child. A choice is being made and the child is the sacificial lamb.

Whereas, killing the child to lower the mother’s BP is murder. The intent there is to kill one person to save another. This is not the same as removing an organ.

This is not a Catholic position. This is natural law reavealed to all men of reason. The Church recognizes the voice and will of the Creator as he speaks through natural law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen.

 

[meltzerboy]

There is absolutely no single possible exception to the moral law. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances, regardless of who’s at risk.

If there is a risk to the mother, the physician has a moral obligation to try to save both lives. He may never choose one over the other. To do so is murder. If one or both lives are lost in the attempt, we commend both souls to the mercy of God.

In the event that the child is viable outside the womb, labor can be provoked or a C-sec may be performed. However, the physician must be certain that the child has reached viability. Let’s say that the child is 35 weeks, gestational age, there is a good chance that this child will live outside the womb. But this is very risky, because one is speculating. It is best to wait to get as close to term as possible.

There are situations in which the phyisician must perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother, when such a procedure cannot be postponed. In that case, even if the death of the child is foreseeable, but there is no intent to terminate the child’s life, this is not an abortion. For example, removing a cancerous uterous that has a child inside, because it cannot wait, is not intended to kill the child, but to remove the failing organ. The death of the child is foreseeable and unavoidable, but not intended.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the removal of the tube, when the situation becomes critical, is not an abortion. However, removing the child from the tube is an abortion. The intent of the latter is very clear, to save the tube at the expense of the child. A choice is being made and the child is the sacificial lamb.

Whereas, killing the child to lower the mother’s BP is murder. The intent there is to kill one person to save another. This is not the same as removing an organ.

This is not a Catholic position. This is natural law reavealed to all men of reason. The Church recognizes the voice and will of the Creator as he speaks through natural law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate your informative explanation. However, based on this, Torah Judaism must either not be receptive to natural law or lack reason, since it has a different view on abortion with respect to saving the mother’s life.

 

[apfrita]

Just what say before I go on I’m totally againest abortions.However I’ve heard that there are times when doing so might save the mothers life because (due to some complication) she can die as well.Would it be allowed in that instance because of the(dare I say brutal Hobson choice) of having to eliminate a life to save another instead of letting both be lost?..If this is so allowed ,that REALLY makes me curious as to what kind of complications would put a women in this situation (information on that would be very much appreciated) and how it can be prevented.Does the Church allow this?.If not then what’s it’s stand in this scenerio?.Would the women and child be allowed to die because of like an “assumption of risk” that comes with being pregnant?(I’m EXTREMELY sorry if that is offensive and/or sexist in any way).Thank you very much so for your time.

As a Catholic and also as a human being, I believe that whenever there is a risk to either of mother or child, the doctor should make every attempt to save both and in the process if both die or either one dies then it cannot be considered as either murder or abortion since there was no intent to do that but the intent was only to save both lives. I think this is the righteous way to tacle the situation. After all Doctors are only human beings and not God that they can 100% predict that in a complicated situation trying to save the child may endanger the mother’s life.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

There is absolutely no single possible exception to the moral law. Abortion is never allowed under any circumstances, regardless of who’s at risk.

If there is a risk to the mother, the physician has a moral obligation to try to save both lives. He may never choose one over the other. To do so is murder. If one or both lives are lost in the attempt, we commend both souls to the mercy of God.

In the event that the child is viable outside the womb, labor can be provoked or a C-sec may be performed. However, the physician must be certain that the child has reached viability. Let’s say that the child is 35 weeks, gestational age, there is a good chance that this child will live outside the womb. But this is very risky, because one is speculating. It is best to wait to get as close to term as possible.

There are situations in which the phyisician must perform a medical procedure to save the life of the mother, when such a procedure cannot be postponed. In that case, even if the death of the child is foreseeable, but there is no intent to terminate the child’s life, this is not an abortion. For example, removing a cancerous uterous that has a child inside, because it cannot wait, is not intended to kill the child, but to remove the failing organ. The death of the child is foreseeable and unavoidable, but not intended.

In an ectopic pregnancy, the removal of the tube, when the situation becomes critical, is not an abortion. However, removing the child from the tube is an abortion. The intent of the latter is very clear, to save the tube at the expense of the child. A choice is being made and the child is the sacificial lamb.

Whereas, killing the child to lower the mother’s BP is murder. The intent there is to kill one person to save another. This is not the same as removing an organ.

This is not a Catholic position. This is natural law reavealed to all men of reason. The Church recognizes the voice and will of the Creator as he speaks through natural law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother,
I have a concern that comes from working 15 years in OB…I have assisted in many emergency C-sections, done from about 24 weeks on to essentially save the mother’s life due to things such as the placenta tearing away from the uterine wall, and issues where such severe preeclampsia caused the mom’s kidneys and liver function to deteriorate. Today’s medical advancements allow for a premature baby born even at 24-25 weeks to have a fair to good chance of survival (the hospital I worked in had a Level 3 NICU- which is the highest level of care for newborns available). Just yesterday, our city’s local paper had an article about a baby born at 22 weeks who is doing well now at age 8. When babies have** survived at even 22-23 weeks and the staff is doing all it can to help the preemie, how does that fit it in with the physician being certain that the baby has reached viability? Even at term, there can be complications that result in maternal or fetal deaths. I can say that without those emergency C-sections, both would have died if the pregnancy had continued for another day (in the severe preeclampsia cases) and even a few more hours (in the placental abruption cases). Now, there were times were the baby didn’t make it and I can’t say whether that was due to severe prematurity or issues resulting from maternal complications, but where does that put the situation? The intent was to save both lives, but even then, one can’t be assured of the outcome, even beyond 36 weeks of gestation. Since the intent is to save both lives and there have been cases of babies surviving at 22-23 weeks, I’m stuggling with how this could be considered abortion or at the very least, immoral, to attempt to save both lives. Thanks for any thoughts you can add to this.

 

[acarlson]

Absolutely no. No exceptions. Every effort must be made to save BOTH the child AND the mother. All human life holds equal value.