Catholic Position Extreme Case of Abortion

[Tis_Bearself]

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”.

I believe that when the mother’s life is threatened by ectopic pregnancy, the Church permits the removal of a fallopian tube containing ectopic pregnancy. . So yes, some forms of removal to save the mother’s life are permitted because the death of the baby is only an indirect effect of the removal.

However, the Church is never, ever going to frame this as common ground with people who want to make an “exception” to allow some abortions. That’s a big slippery slope.

It’s also my understanding that these “save the life of the mother” cases are extremely rare. They get discussed way, way out of proportion to the miniscule amount of times they actually happen. The vast majority of abortions are not about any threat to the mother’s life, they’re simply that she or her family don’t want the inconvenience of a pregnancy.

 

[o_mlly]

Catholic teaching says ‘no’ to this since the ‘end cannot justify the means’.

Not exactly. The moral teaching is that the ends do justify the means unless the means are intrinsically evil.

This would be “the principle of double effect”, performing a morally neutral act — removing the uterus — …

In the concrete, there are no morally neutral acts. Removing a diseased uterus may be morally permitted. Removing a non-diseased, normally functioning uterus from a living woman probably is not.

The child is innocent and cannot be considered an unjust aggressor. Any direct attack on the life of the child is immoral.

if it is ok to actively kill a innocent life if it will result in saving, let’s say, one million people.

No.

CCC#1753: Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

 

[o_mlly]

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”?

The extremely rare and tragic case of an ectopic pregnancy in which the fetus locates on the mother’s liver (hepatic pregnancy) is indeed tragic. The vital organ cannot be excised. We can only pray that God will grant the mother and father the grace see His will and depend on His mercy and love.

See:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3519057/

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

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”.

I believe that when the mother’s life is threatened by ectopic pregnancy, the Church permits the removal of a fallopian tube containing ectopic pregnancy. . So yes, some forms of removal to save the mother’s life are permitted because the death of the baby is only an indirect effect of the removal.

However, the Church is never, ever going to frame this as common ground with people who want to make an “exception” to allow some abortions. That’s a big slippery slope.

Yes, it could indeed be a slippery slope, as you put it. And ectopic pregnancies, where the portion of the tube is removed, are not quite what I was talking about. I was referring to removing the fetus intact and alive, making absolutely no assault upon its life, and endeavoring to save it, if at all possible. Premature births after six months or so, are extremely common, and the babies usually live, many times without serious problems. What I was referring to would be more in the nature of a “premature caesarean”.

I have to think that pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother are fairly common — pre-eclampsia and toxemia (which seem to be basically the same thing) are just two instances that come to mind. I am just trying to think of being able to save both the mother and the baby. I have heard the Catholic position lampooned along the lines of “because you’re not willing to abort the baby to save the mother, that means you prefer the life of the baby to that of the mother”. We know that’s not true, but it’s a common prejudice among non-Catholics — perhaps not as much so as in years past, but back then, definitely a widely-held idea.

FiveLinden:

Catholic teaching says ‘no’ to this since the ‘end cannot justify the means’.

Not exactly. The moral teaching is that the ends do justify the means unless the means are intrinsically evil.

If the means are not intrinsically evil, then they do not have to be justified.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

This would be “the principle of double effect”, performing a morally neutral act — removing the uterus — …

In the concrete, there are no morally neutral acts. Removing a diseased uterus may be morally permitted. Removing a non-diseased, normally functioning uterus from a living woman probably is not.

The act itself is morally neutral, though removing an internal bodily organ cannot be done “just because” — there has to be a reason to do so.

HomeschoolDad:

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”?

The extremely rare and tragic case of an ectopic pregnancy in which the fetus locates on the mother’s liver (hepatic pregnancy) is indeed tragic. The vital organ cannot be excised. We can only pray that God will grant the mother and father the grace see His will and depend on His mercy and love.

This is a horrible scenario to have to consider. This is precisely the kind of “hard case” I had in mind — deliver the fetus surgically, save it if you can, and if it perishes despite your best intentions and efforts, then that just cannot be helped.

Incidentally, can’t part of a liver be removed? When my son was born, we thought he might have liver problems. I told them that, if need be, he can have part of mine — I don’t need the whole thing, and besides, it regenerates. Thankfully it didn’t come to that.

Not defending them, but I can’t imagine non-Catholics who would have a problem with an abortion in this case. We make fine moral distinctions, and we parse means and ends, because we seek first of all to avoid committing a sin. If there are any non-Catholic Christians, or non-Christian religions, that would make these fine distinctions, it would come as welcome news to me. Traditional Orthodox Judaism seems perfectly capable of engaging in the same kind of dispassionate, critical reasoning that we do — not to say that they would come to the same conclusions as we do, because they proceed from different first principles — but aside from that, I’m not sure any other religion “splits hairs” in this fashion. Again, if any of them do, it’d be news to me. What I “like” or “dislike” doesn’t matter, but I do have to say this is one thing I “like” about Catholicism — we cover all the bases, and we follow reason and logic, wherever it might take us, regardless of whose interests it serves or doesn’t serve.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I disagree with calling it “the fetus”. Call it a baby or child or life. That’s what it is.

I’m sure if there was some way to remove it as soon as it became viable and try to keep it alive, doctors would try it.

I don’t care what non-Catholics think of this whole issue, frankly. This isn’t something on which we pander to them. Nor should we.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

What’s the diagnosis?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I disagree with calling it “the fetus”. Call it a baby or child or life. That’s what it is.

I use the terms interchangeably.

I don’t care what non-Catholics think of this whole issue, frankly. This isn’t something on which we pander to them. Nor should we.

No, but we need to speak the truth clearly, and perhaps jolt them into seeing these matters exactly as they are, perhaps for the very first time.

 

[Wesrock]

I have not read everything in this topic, but it was written that in this hypothetical “the baby is not developing.” We need a bio-ethicist to chime in, but to my knowledge if the baby is brain dead then it may be morally licit to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[esieffe]

If Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot, and Hitler were all babies in a carriage next to a cliff, even then you could not take their lives.

If God wanted to take action, he would see about it. We are not God. It all may sound tough, but that is just the way it is. We are only here for a speck of time. We have to concern ourselves with eternity.

 

[FiveLinden]

I don’t care what non-Catholics think of this whole issue, frankly. This isn’t something on which we pander to them. Nor should we.

I am sure I recall you supporting laws to restrict abortion. To have such laws you need to care about what non-Catholics think.

 

[Dovekin]

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.

An abortion ban that does not allow an exception for the life of the mother is unconstitutional. Pass a law that is as restrictive as Catholic teaching, and the law will be overturned. But pass a law that outlaws abortion except to save the life of the mother and it might not be overturned (exceptions for rape and incest are also required).

 

[Anesti33]

Unconstitutional, according to whom?

 

[Autumnfa]

I mean it’s the same as Mary knowing throughout her life in the moments of sorrows she will have to watch her innocent son be crucified and beaten… because of us she said yes which she had free will to say no. Just because she knew he would suffer and she would suffer in a whole new way she’s an example of how a mothers love is.
Doctors told my mom she may die and my sister was going to be challenged she perfectly fine, my mom almost died but didn’t.
Doctors told my mom again she will have a high chance of dying and that (I) wasn’t going to make it. My heart rate dropped so low my mom was on the edge of death and somehow recovered and I recovered quick. Doctors can’t tell for sure what is going on.
My cousin had 3 holes in her heart and they healed on their own…
Doctors are amazing and I don’t discredit most of them… but they do not have the future or fate of a definite answer.

Godbless

 

[FiveLinden]

An abortion ban that does not allow an exception for the life of the mother is unconstitutional

Not all Catholics live in the United States. Not all countries have constitutions.

 

[Montrose]

But pass a law that outlaws abortion except to save the life of the mother and it might not be overturned (exceptions for rape and incest are also required).

There are no exceptions. Direct abortion is forbidden, even to save the life of the mother. This is God’s teaching.

 

[Rau]

An abortion ban that does not allow an exception for the life of the mother is unconstitutional.

Presumably you are commenting in a US context.

You address a perceived requirement to allow the unborn to be directly killed in certain circumstances. The unborn are the most innocent of all, yet it is only they among all innocents who you’d allow to be directly killed?

 

[kapp19]

We need a bio-ethicist to chime in, but to my knowledge if the baby is brain dead then it may be morally licit to terminate the pregnancy.

As long as the brain death is the result of real death. That’s a can of worms, with uncomfortable conclusions - especially for organ donation. And it is a serious, serious problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[o_mlly]

If the means are not intrinsically evil, then they do not have to be justified.

No. For the human act to be morally justified, not only the object must be good but also the intention and circumstances. Goodness in all three fonts are required.

CCC#1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

 

[o_mlly]

The act itself is morally neutral, though removing an internal bodily organ cannot be done “just because” — there has to be a reason to do so.

No human act in the concrete is neutral. The moral object of the act, i.e., the inherent ordering of the act itself toward its moral object constitutes the moral species of the chosen act.