Catholic Position Extreme Case of Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fidem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fidem

Guest
What is the Catholic position regarding a hypothetical situation where a pregnant woman is certain to die if her pregnancy goes on and, at the same time, is 100% certain that the baby will not develops either way, even if she does nothing. It would be morally right to actively kill the baby to save one life instead of losing both?

This question are also in line with the moral question if it is ok to actively kill a innocent life if it will result in saving, let’s say, one million people.
 
I think it is fairly clear that Catholic teaching says ‘no’ to this since the ‘end cannot justify the means’. Some Catholics are consistent in arguing for laws that reflect this position but the vast majority of ‘pro-life’ politicians in practice do not advocate for the law to extend this far. While I can understand a position of ‘getting the most restrictive law possible’ I have always wondered about the morality of not proposing a law saying what such politician really think.
 
Fidem said:
What is the Catholic position regarding a hypothetical situation where a pregnant woman is certain to die if her pregnancy goes on and, at the same time, is 100% certain that the baby will not develops either way, even if she does nothing. It would be morally right to actively kill the baby to save one life instead of losing both?
Click to expand...
Can’t do it. The doctors have to do everything in their power to save both. If it comes down to it, the Catholic Faith views it better to allow both to die, and to commit no sin (in this case, killing the unborn child), rather than to sin by murdering the child, even if this will save the mother. A direct abortion may never be performed.

However, I believe I am right in saying that if, for instance, the mother had a malignant uterus, and the cancer were killing her, the uterus could be removed, even if the baby could not be delivered viably and would die once the uterus were removed. The baby’s death would be foreseen, but not directly caused. This would be “the principle of double effect”, performing a morally neutral act — removing the uterus — with the good effect being to keep the mother from dying, but the bad effect being the death of the baby. The doctors would save the baby if they could, but if it is not viable, they cannot. They simply have to allow it to die. This is not a direct abortion.
 
FiveLinden said:
I think it is fairly clear that Catholic teaching says ‘no’ to this since the ‘end cannot justify the means’. Some Catholics are consistent in arguing for laws that reflect this position but the vast majority of ‘pro-life’ politicians in practice do not advocate for the law to extend this far. While I can understand a position of ‘getting the most restrictive law possible’ I have always wondered about the morality of not proposing a law saying what such politician really think.
Click to expand...
I have my doubts that any faith other than Catholicism (don’t know about Orthodoxy) would reject “the end justifies the means” in a case such as this. Many non-Catholics, possibly without even realizing it, exercise a form of proportionalism, “the end justifies the means”, “hard cases allow exceptions”, and again, even though they may not be aware of their biases, they elevate the life of the mother above that of the child.

I also doubt you would ever get a law passed that would say “no exceptions, not even the mother’s life” unless you had a republic made up entirely of orthodox, faithful Catholics. We’re nowhere near that, and barring some huge miracle of grace (aftermath of the Three Days of Darkness?), we will never get that far. We are certainly allowed to accept lesser measures even though they do not pass a “Catholic doctrinal purity test” — how do you tell those unborn babies “we couldn’t save you because we couldn’t get a perfect law passed, even though agreeing to ‘less than perfect’ would have saved you”?
 
Last edited:
No, and no; but killing the baby will not save the mother anyway, so it’s an invalid hypothetical.
 
Its a mortal sin to have an abortion even if both mother and child are at risk. Life is a risk, living is a risk and death is certain who is to know who will live or die and when? Who knows the hour of their death or the length of their days? How can a doctor truly know if he is making a true diagnosis when so many times people come out ok. Also childbearing in general is risky. So many mothers have died giving birth I think Sara did in the Old Testament. Living is a risk. If a pregnancy is not healthy it usually ends in a miscarriage. This is God’s way of doing things. I think St Franco’s Borgio saw a corpse of a lady who had a miscarriage and then died weeks later. It sounds horrible but we are not to know why God works the way he does. Thou shalt not kill.

Hope this helps. Theres no extreme cases. The mother would and should rather chose to die and this is the love a mother should have at all times, willing to give all as Christ gave all to us and to lose ones life is to save it for all time in Heaven. If your mother gave her life for you so that you could live you would have increased love for her and gratitude, even though you had not met her personally you would be so grateful and this is what Jesus and Mary have done for us. We should be crying for such wonderful spiritual parents like Jesus and Mary. They both surely died, so that we could live. Lets imitate them, and their extreme cases as dying for us horrible sinners. With this in mind a mother should have no trouble dying for her child, as christ died for us, as we have sins on our souls and the unborn child has purity of soul. She would surely merit a high reward in Heaven!
 
Fidem said:
What is the Catholic position regarding a hypothetical situation where a pregnant woman is certain to die if her pregnancy goes on and, at the same time, is 100% certain that the baby will not develops either way, even if she does nothing. It would be morally right to actively kill the baby to save one life instead of losing both?

This question are also in line with the moral question if it is ok to actively kill a innocent life if it will result in saving, let’s say, one million people.
Click to expand...
There are no circumstances at all that justify a direct abortion.
 
The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s summary document

Protocols for Managing Ectopic Pregnancy

• “Ideally, the embryo would be surgically removed from the fallopian tube and transplanted to the uterus, but this procedure is not yet a viable option.
.
• SalpinGECTOMY … The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of an act directed at removing the pathologically affected section of the fallopian tube.
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY … The act by its object removes the trophoblast ; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
• Use of methotrexate (permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists).

This argument assumes that the trophoblast is not an organ of the embryo and therefore can be an object of moral focus apart from the developing embryo.

Moral Debate regarding Salpingostomy and the Use of Methotrexate Some Catholic ethicists argue that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate are morally permissible under the principle of double effect. They argue that both procedures directly intend the removal of the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place, and not the embryonic child itself.

Defending the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences since 1972”

.
PLEASE CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES:

• SalpinGECTOMY: – Most invasive procedure.
Removes the fallopian tube , removes the trophoblast and removes the embryo.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.

(Part of Catholic ethicists instead of SalpinGECTOMY prefer the use of SalpinGOSTOMY or the use of methotrexate ).

.
• SalpinGOSTOMY: – Less invasive procedure.
Removes the trophoblast and removes the embryo.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.

(Permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists, some Catholic ethicists for it, some Catholic ethicists against it).

.
• Use of methotrexate: – Least invasive procedure.
This drug targets the trophoblastic cells, inhibits the rapid multiplication of trophoblastic cells.
In reality, removes the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.

(Permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists, some Catholic ethicists for it, some Catholic ethicists against it).
.
2 Cor.3:6 He has qualified us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life.
.
Seems to me, not yet every Catholic ethicists qualified ministers of his new covenant.
.
Rom.7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

My trust is in those Catholic ethicists who are serving in the new way of the Spirit.
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
Fidem said:
It would be morally right to actively kill the baby to save one life instead of losing both?
Click to expand...
The Catholic position is that it is always wrong to set out to directly kill an innocent person.
 
Last edited:
Latin said:
My trust is in those Catholic ethicists who are serving in the new way of the Spirit
Click to expand...
Whom you think, as we established on another thread, are the ones who do evil in order that good may come of it. Which is wrong, and evil, and contrary to what Paul teaches elsewhere.

I’m sorry you are so hung up on this one verse, but it does you and others no good to keep hammering on it. You seem fixated in a very unhealthy way and should probably take a step away from posting on moral theology in these forums… Just my thought. God bless you.
 
Fidem said:
What is the Catholic position regarding a hypothetical situation where a pregnant woman is certain to die if her pregnancy goes on and, at the same time, is 100% certain that the baby will not develops either way, even if she does nothing.
Click to expand...
You’ll find this question and connected questions explored in some depth and detail in Fr. Connery’s book on abortion. There are some gaps though… But it gets a lot set in place in this discussion.

-K
 
Latin said:
Use of methotrexate: – Least invasive procedure.
This drug targets the trophoblastic cells, inhibits the rapid multiplication of trophoblastic cells.
In reality, removes the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that the death of the embryo is necessary for this measure to benefit the mother. It is difficult to argue the death is unintended when it is necessary for success. :roll_eyes:
 
From the US Bishops’ Ethical directives in Catholic Healthcare:

45. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable foetus) 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…

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

The matter of theological debate (relying on a depth of medical knowledge) is whether the following medical procedures:
a) removing the embryo from the tube (Salpingostomy);
b) methotrexate injection

are direct abortions.

Salpingectomy - removing the tube (containing the embryo) is (as far as I know) widely agreed to NOT be a direct abortion.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me there’s a difference between ending a pregnancy and killing a baby. I ended my pregnancy to save my life, my baby is fine. Sometimes they can’t save the baby but they should of course try if appropriate. Mothers should have the right to self defence though.
 
Fidem said:
It would be morally right to actively kill the baby to save one life instead of losing both?
Click to expand...
No, it’s never “morally right” to actively kill an innocent person, even to save other lives.
The Church does not allow the active killing of a baby prior to its birth, for any reason.
 
Last edited:
Leek said:
Seems to me there’s a difference between ending a pregnancy and killing a baby. I ended my pregnancy to save my life, my baby is fine. Sometimes they can’t save the baby but they should of course try if appropriate. Mothers should have the right to self defence though.
Click to expand...
I will submit to the teaching and interpretation of the magisterium, but I have wondered this myself — if there is a sufficiently grave reason to end the pregnancy, may the fetus simply be excised from the mother, without attacking its bodily integrity in any way, doing everything we can, whatever that might be, to save the child, and while we would certainly like to see it live, it might not be at a stage of development where this is possible.

In other words, it would be something in the nature of a caesarean to deliver a baby that we know will be premature, and we will try to save if we can, but we go into the procedure knowing that may not be possible. How could that be called a “direct abortion”?

It would have to be a “life or grave physical harm to the mother” situation, not simply a woman not wanting to be pregnant. And I would think the termination/delivery would have to be stalled off as long as possible, to increase the chances that the baby would live.

If my reasoning is sound and conforms to Catholic moral theology, this might be a way to find some common ground with those who say “we oppose abortion except to save the life of the mother”.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top