Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[catharina]

Here is the link: newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

If I misinterpreted the meaning of the article I would appreciate your pointing that out to me.

I’m about to leave for work.
I haven’t time to analyze that article.
So you do your homework, ok?

Find the point where the article said this:
But the Catholic church says abortion under certain circumstances is permitted.

That’s what you “quoted.” Find it, please.

 

[catharina]

Ok, what if she had tried to carry the twins all the way to birth but it was found out that she WAS in immenent danger of dyeing in her fourth month, then what?

She was already in her fourth month.
Doctors found NO danger to her or to the babies.

 

[GeorgiaHunter]

Hard to believe that you quoted New Advent accurately since I can’t believe that site siad that abortion is EVER justified. New Advent is fairly reputable. Perhaps you mis-read their statement? Or varied it?

Having worked with abused children (including sexually abused children) for close to forty years - as I stated in an earlier post - you’d have to be deluded to think I (or the Church) would ever say ‘too bad for this little girl’ as in “Who cares? So what?” That you imagine abortion provides a “happy ending” for the trauma that will mark her life for ages is fantasy. She is still in the care of a mother who allowed years of sexual abuse to TWO of her daughters. Think the child is in good and competent hands? !!!

God bless you for your work, I admire you.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I’m about to leave for work.
I haven’t time to analyze that article.
So you do your homework, ok?

Find the point where the article said this:
But the Catholic church says abortion under certain circumstances is permitted.

That’s what you “quoted.” Find it, please.

I have to say, I think you’re being a bit snippish, here. Actually, the part that GeorgiaHunter quoted is near the middle of the page, and I’d say she interpreted it perfectly. Funny how all of us have been bickering for pages and pages about whether abortion to save a mother’s life is, or is not, permitted, and none of us ever provided any sources. Well, I would say GeorgiaHunter has come along and cited a pretty expert opinion!

Disappointingly, though, the New Advent article doesn’t cite any papal documents or anything. So there is still the possibility that the NA is wrong – I doubt it, but maybe someone knows of any sources that say the contrary?

That said, I do still disagree with your ultimate point, GeorgiaHunter, if I am understanding you correctly. If an abortion were ever hypothetically necessary to save the girl’s life, then I guess according to NA it could be justified. But the consensus on this board seems to be (I’m not an obstetrician, so I can only assume this is correct) that it would have been possible to wait a little longer, and then if the girl’s life were in danger, to perform a C-section, not an abortion, in the hopes that then the twins would survive.

It is true that the pregnancy must have been traumatic for the little girl, but I offer this thought: already the poor thing has been through Hell…the principle trauma was the rape she suffered. Now she is pregnant – 23 weeks, I think, which means she’s probably gotten used to the idea. Of course anyone would want to spare her as much pain as possible, and as soon as possible, but would waiting just a few weeks longer to monitor the pregnancy have added any more trauma than she’d already suffered? Especially considering that she will have to live with this heat-of-the-moment medical decision for the rest of her life. Basically the alternative is between two surgeries…opening her belly to remove the two babies, or sticking a knife into her womb, killing the babies inside, and taking their bodies out with tongs. Undoubtedly both would sound gruesome to the poor girl, but as she grew older, I’d argue, she’d begin to see the radical difference in intention: under one scenario, her body was used as the site of a rescue mission, a desperate attempt to save two lives, and what a brave girl she would have been to let the doctors try to do that…under the other scenario, her body was used as the site of a mission to destroy those two lives, to remove her own children from her womb as though they were infections, and what a poor child she is to have this violence inflicted on her without her even being able to make the decision by herself.

I think that that’s what the two alternatives look like in my mind and in the minds of many people on this forum…and that’s one of the reasons why we think that letting the pregnancy progress would have been so much better not just for the twins, but for the poor young mother’s long-term physical and emotional health.

Finally, to the posters who have joined the discussion and are new to CAF, welcome!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[GeorgiaHunter]

Very well put! And I thank you for your kind words towards me.

As I have stated all along, I am not a theologian and I very well could be wrong on this issue. I can only start from what I read in the liberal press about this whole terrible tragedy and go from there. the last I heard was that this little girl WAS in imminent danger, and that the unfeeling Catholic Church (of which I am a proud member - I converted several years ago) was basically using her as an example to other Catholics who might be thinking about abortion.

I see (if I hear you right) that the girl was NOT in any physical danger, so I will concede in this instance that her abortion was unwarranted. But if every doctor did agree that she was in imminent danger, would the Church still tell her she would have to die rather than get a life saving abortion? Is abortion really such a black and white issue with absolutely no ground for discussion, logic, or reason?

Would mother and child both have to die? If so…That pill will take time to digest.

It was a pleasure reading your thoughts. God Bless.

 

[fix]

I am no expert but I think their is a vast moral difference between direct abortion and what is sometimes called indirect abortion.

Direct abortion is never justified under any circumstance. That is because it is intrinsically evil. It is an evil act that is never allowed. It is the intention to kill an innocent person.

Indirect abortion has no intent to kill. Both mother and child are treated. Both are intended to be saved. If the child dies as an unintended consequence of medical treatment that is much different than willing the child’s death.

I hope that helps some.

 

[tuviskazinai]

I am no expert but I think their is a vast moral difference between direct abortion and what is sometimes called indirect abortion.

Direct abortion is never justified under any circumstance. That is because it is intrinsically evil. It is an evil act that is never allowed. It is the intention to kill an innocent person.

Indirect abortion has no intent to kill. Both mother and child are treated. Both are intended to be saved. If the child dies as an unintended consequence of medical treatment that is much different than willing the child’s death.

I hope that helps some.

I think you may be right…and that seems to be what the New Advent article was talking about.

I was just looking through some Q&A postings on this forum, and the consensus among the professional Catholic apologists seems to be that “abortion is not allowed even to save the life of the mother.” They made their case, most powerfully, by citing St. Gianna Beretta Molla, who died of a ruptured ovarian cyst after giving birth knowing that the only way to avoid that would have been to have an abortion. But to the extent that I could see, none of the posts went into the differences between direct and indirect abortions.

So I guess the question is: is an “indirect abortion” really an abortion? Under the category of indirect abortion would seem to fall something like the removal of a Fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. But that seems not to be an actual abortion, since it’s targeting the tube rather than the infant.

When I think about it that way, I have some serious questions. The reasoning seems to be that even though it is a foregone conclusion that the baby will die when the tube is removed, since it is not being killed under a knife or something, it is permissible because the baby could hypothetically survive. Here’s what I find problematic: one of the Q&A posts asked whether the Church condoned the injection of a chemical (I forget which one, but apparently it is a valid medical procedure) that kills an ectopic pregnancy without necessitating the removal of a Fallopian tube. The answer was no, simply on the grounds that that injection would target the baby. But the baby will die in a tube removal too – or are we supposed to base certain rare medical decisions on a faith in miracles? (And that would be dangerous, because frankly, there is a far better chance that a baby will survive a botched abortion – it happens all the time – than that a baby will survive a successful Fallopian tube removal.)

Or…the most problematic scenario was this: a pregnant woman was diagnosed with cancer and given only weeks to live if she did not undergo chemotherapy right away. Chemo would have killed the baby, and yet if the mother succumbed to cancer, then the baby would have died, all the same. The answer was that the woman must not undergo chemo because it would kill the baby.

My questions:

1. Why is chemo forbidden here? Why do we assume that it falls under the category of “direct abortion” rather than “indirect abortion” like an ectopic removal? After all, it is not targeted at the infant…
2. If C-sections are not an option, and there are no secret avenues out of the problem that are not contained in the above formulation, then why can’t we accept that the baby will die either way and act so as to save the life of the mother? Is it only because we are waiting for a “miracle,” so-called (i.e., the hope that the doctors’ opinion on her life expectancy is wrong)?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Sorry, I guess I am straying off-topic, but I would be interested in opening a new thread if people have thoughts on the matter…

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[GeorgiaHunter]

Actually it does. Thank you.

This is my first time on any forum (ever!) so I was a little hesitant to join in, not knowing what to expect. Except for a minor incident or two, you all made me feel very welcome, and I appreciated the exchange of veiws, opinions, and dogma. I have learned from you all, and hope to keep doing so in the future.

I have no problem with your definition of “direct” abortion and agree 100%. I guess where I am spliting hairs is the “indirect” abortion you spoke of. I still don’t have a clear cut answer to this question: If the mother’s life (regardless of age) is determined to be at grave risk, and the baby is not at a viable age, does the Catholic Church make an exception for her life, or does she have to carry until both die?

Sorry to resort to hypothetical questions, but I don’t see another way to ask the question.

New Advent led me to believe she could abort, IF it was the only choice to save a life.

 

[TMC]

I think you may be right…and that seems to be what the New Advent article was talking about.

I was just looking through some Q&A postings on this forum, and the consensus among the professional Catholic apologists seems to be that “abortion is not allowed even to save the life of the mother.” They made their case, most powerfully, by citing St. Gianna Beretta Molla, who died of a ruptured ovarian cyst after giving birth knowing that the only way to avoid that would have been to have an abortion. But to the extent that I could see, none of the posts went into the differences between direct and indirect abortions.

So I guess the question is: is an “indirect abortion” really an abortion? Under the category of indirect abortion would seem to fall something like the removal of a Fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. But that seems not to be an actual abortion, since it’s targeting the tube rather than the infant.

When I think about it that way, I have some serious questions. The reasoning seems to be that even though it is a foregone conclusion that the baby will die when the tube is removed, since it is not being killed under a knife or something, it is permissible because the baby could hypothetically survive. Here’s what I find problematic: one of the Q&A posts asked whether the Church condoned the injection of a chemical (I forget which one, but apparently it is a valid medical procedure) that kills an ectopic pregnancy without necessitating the removal of a Fallopian tube. The answer was no, simply on the grounds that that injection would target the baby. But the baby will die in a tube removal too – or are we supposed to base certain rare medical decisions on a faith in miracles? (And that would be dangerous, because frankly, there is a far better chance that a baby will survive a botched abortion – it happens all the time – than that a baby will survive a successful Fallopian tube removal.)

Or…the most problematic scenario was this: a pregnant woman was diagnosed with cancer and given only weeks to live if she did not undergo chemotherapy right away. Chemo would have killed the baby, and yet if the mother succumbed to cancer, then the baby would have died, all the same. The answer was that the woman must not undergo chemo because it would kill the baby.

My questions:

1. Why is chemo forbidden here? Why do we assume that it falls under the category of “direct abortion” rather than “indirect abortion” like an ectopic removal? After all, it is not targeted at the infant…
2. If C-sections are not an option, and there are no secret avenues out of the problem that are not contained in the above formulation, then why can’t we accept that the baby will die either way and act so as to save the life of the mother? Is it only because we are waiting for a “miracle,” so-called (i.e., the hope that the doctors’ opinion on her life expectancy is wrong)?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Sorry, I guess I am straying off-topic, but I would be interested in opening a new thread if people have thoughts on the matter…

Peace,
+AMDG+

I believe this is all a semantic game. I see no difference between this case and an ectopic pregnancy. There is no doubt that the operation to remove an ectopic pregnancy is aimed at removing the child. Many, if not most, are done chemically today. There is no chance the baby will survive. There are cases of ectopic pregnancies being carried to term. But the Church recognizes that the risk to the mother’s life justifies terminating an ectopic pregnancy. Why isn’t the same true here?

 

[Apryl]

So you are syaing this girls life would be better if she did not abort?

I don’t know what the person you are asking this is saying, BUT I SURE AM!

Yes, the life of the child, the 9 year old who had been raped by her father, who was pregnant with twins, who didn’t even know she was pregnant (thought it was a simple stomach ache) would be happier in the long run if she had not had the abortion: whether any one asked her or not (and I’m sure they didn’t ask her, either, since she’s only 9 years old)

Now, since you posed the question:

Why do you think/assume/believe that her life is now better, now that she’s had an abortion?

And I would like for you to consider the women who have publicly professed the scarrs on their psyche after an abortion, the number of support groups for women who have had abortions, the small number of people who publicly defend their own abortions.

Based on that, and whatever life experiences you have, do you believe her life was in any way enhanced by having this abortion? And if so, why (since I obviously don’t agree with that position)

 

[GeorgiaHunter]

I believe this is all a semantic game. I see no difference between this case and an ectopic pregnancy. There is no doubt that the operation to remove an ectopic pregnancy is aimed at removing the child. Many, if not most, are done chemically today. There is no chance the baby will survive. There are cases of ectopic pregnancies being carried to term. But the Church recognizes that the risk to the mother’s life justifies terminating an ectopic pregnancy. Why isn’t the same true here?/QUOTE

Wonderful questions, it does seem like semantics: No you can never have an abortion, but you can remove the tube with the unviable baby in it.

Isn’t that the same thing?

 

[fix]

EWTN has this:

The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
see immediately, it is permissible to perform…

 

[fix]

The reasoning seems to be that even though it is a foregone conclusion that the baby will die when the tube is removed, since it is not being killed under a knife or something, it is permissible because the baby could hypothetically survive.

I think the reasoning it is licit is because the pathology is the tube. That is why it gets excised. The baby is not a pathology, but a rupturing tube is.

Here’s what I find problematic: one of the Q&A posts asked whether the Church condoned the injection of a chemical (I forget which one, but apparently it is a valid medical procedure) that kills an ectopic pregnancy without necessitating the removal of a Fallopian tube. The answer was no, simply on the grounds that that injection would target the baby. But the baby will die in a tube removal too – or are we supposed to base certain rare medical decisions on a faith in miracles? (And that would be dangerous, because frankly, there is a far better chance that a baby will survive a botched abortion – it happens all the time – than that a baby will survive a successful Fallopian tube removal.)

Again , do not trust me I am no expert. I have read that moral theologians are divided on MTX use in these cases. I do not know if the Vatican has ruled or not.

Or…the most problematic scenario was this: a pregnant woman was diagnosed with cancer and given only weeks to live if she did not undergo chemotherapy right away. Chemo would have killed the baby, and yet if the mother succumbed to cancer, then the baby would have died, all the same. The answer was that the woman must not undergo chemo because it would kill the baby.

I think the mother may licitly have the treatment. It would he heroic to not have it, but I do not think it is required to not have it.

 

[fix]

I believe this is all a semantic game. I see no difference between this case and an ectopic pregnancy. There is no doubt that the operation to remove an ectopic pregnancy is aimed at removing the child. Many, if not most, are done chemically today. There is no chance the baby will survive. There are cases of ectopic pregnancies being carried to term. But the Church recognizes that the risk to the mother’s life justifies terminating an ectopic pregnancy. Why isn’t the same true here?

The tube is the source of the pathology, not the baby. In the case with the OP what pathology is being treated?

 

[Fran65]

In terms of pathology:

If the girl had stomach pains then she may have been experiencing a rupturing uterus. This can happen - and sometimes does to women who have had a c-section or where the uterus is incapable of stretching far enought to accommodate the foetus(es). If it occurs there is a very high death rate due to the large volume of blood loss and shock.

In addition, she may have gone into heart failure and or pther types of organ failure or compromised function due to the enlarging uterus and the space that it would take up with a mutliple pregnancy.

 

[GeorgiaHunter]

I don’t know what the person you are asking this is saying, BUT I SURE AM!

Yes, the life of the child, the 9 year old who had been raped by her father, who was pregnant with twins, who didn’t even know she was pregnant (thought it was a simple stomach ache) would be happier in the long run if she had not had the abortion: whether any one asked her or not (and I’m sure they didn’t ask her, either, since she’s only 9 years old)

Now, since you posed the question:

Why do you think/assume/believe that her life is now better, now that she’s had an abortion?

And I would like for you to consider the women who have publicly professed the scarrs on their psyche after an abortion, the number of support groups for women who have had abortions, the small number of people who publicly defend their own abortions.

Based on that, and whatever life experiences you have, do you believe her life was in any way enhanced by having this abortion? And if so, why (since I obviously don’t agree with that position)

Well let me state for the record that I have already conceded the fact that in this specific case I was proven wrong. I was led to beleive that the little girl was in immenent danger and had to have the abortion. I was given new facts by other forum members, and have changed my stance on this girls case. Thank you one and all.

As for how I think her life would have been enhanced, the fact that she would live and not die would have been my first and only point. But seeing as how she is not going to die (or never was) the point is mute.

God Bless.

 

[Apryl]

Well let me state for the record that I have already conceded the fact that in this specific case I was proven wrong. I was led to beleive that the little girl was in immenent danger and had to have the abortion. I was given new facts by other forum members, and have changed my stance on this girls case. Thank you one and all.

Whew!

I’m glad to see that. I keep skimming these posts, and seeing more ‘she was going to die’ comments.

I asked a friend of mine, unfamiliar with the story, what she thought of a 9 year old having a baby. ‘She’ll die!’.

Just like that. Emphatic. Matter of fact, No wiggle room. ‘She will die’.

Now, I know that we have all heard, at some point, of the Peruvian Indian girl who gave birth at at 5. Just one, isolated, rare as all get out case. But it’s a case.

I have NEVER, not in any Urban Legend, not in any campfire story, in no way have I heard of a young girl dying in childbirth BECAUSE of her age.

A woman I know works with children in strange situations (for lack of a better term), who told me about meeting 10 year olds pregnant with their second child.

But if you ask the average person what would happen with a 9 year old being pregnant, the comments turn to ‘I don’t think that’s possible’, or 'she’s too young to have that child. It will kill her.

So sad that we don’t believe in the miracle of life, and the miracles around us.

I’m glad that you have been ‘corrected’

 

[GeorgiaHunter]

I’m not as hard headed as I look.

 

[TMC]

The tube is the source of the pathology, not the baby. In the case with the OP what pathology is being treated?

Ectopic pregnancies are not always treated by tubal ligation anymore. If detected early they are treated by injecting a drug that kills the baby. If that doesn’t work, or if the baby is too big, then they use surgery.

 

[pepin1980]

InQuest 23

there is no extreme case - LIFE IS LIFE - ABORTION IS KILLING