Clarification of Catholic Teaching on Abortion

[Tim_Skelton]

My wife is a Lutheran who is against abortion except in the cases where it is required to save a woman’s life. She is especially concerned about the significant number of young teen-age mothers that are dying in Africa during child birth. What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on Abortion in cases where a mother’s life is at stake?

 

[whit]

Tim Skelton:

My wife is a Lutheran who is against abortion except in the cases where it is required to save a woman’s life. She is especially concerned about the significant number of young teen-age mothers that are dying in Africa during child birth. What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on Abortion in cases where a mother’s life is at stake?

The Church’s teaching is that the life of the mother is the ONLY time that the baby’s life can be taken and only if it will save the life of the mother. However it is not required that the baby’s life be taken. It can be that the natural sequences can be left alone to see what will happen and it is possible that one or both may die.

As to the number of deaths due to childbirth in Aftica, I wonder if the real reason for the death of the mother is not due to other causes either prior to or just after the childbirth. I don’t know.

Anyway, that is the situtaton as I understand it.
God bless.
Whit

 

[St_Veronica]

Tim Skelton:

My wife is a Lutheran who is against abortion except in the cases where it is required to save a woman’s life. She is especially concerned about the significant number of young teen-age mothers that are dying in Africa during child birth. What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on Abortion in cases where a mother’s life is at stake?

The teaching of the Church is that abortion can NEVER be done.

Here’s a couple of examples of what can be done:

Woman is pregnant, has cancer. If the cancer treatments the woman receives have the side effect of causing the child to die, she has done nothing wrong. She can’t go have an abortion then have cancer treatments.

If a woman has a etopic pregnancy and the doctors must remove the fallopian tube to save her life, the life of the child will end.

SV

 

[yochumjy]

whit:

The Church’s teaching is that the life of the mother is the ONLY time that the baby’s life can be taken and only if it will save the life of the mother. However it is not required that the baby’s life be taken. It can be that the natural sequences can be left alone to see what will happen and it is possible that one or both may die.

No, the Catholic Church does not say abortion is okay, ever. There are cases where a medical problem can be treated that results in an abortion. But as far as solely, just aborting a baby, no.

whit:

As to the number of deaths due to childbirth in Aftica, I wonder if the real reason for the death of the mother is not due to other causes either prior to or just after the childbirth. I don’t know.

I agree, unless you know the real cause, you can make no judgement, but I doubt that abortion is a cure…

John

 

[The_Barrister]

whit:

The Church’s teaching is that the life of the mother is the ONLY time that the baby’s life can be taken and only if it will save the life of the mother. However it is not required that the baby’s life be taken. It can be that the natural sequences can be left alone to see what will happen and it is possible that one or both may die.

As to the number of deaths due to childbirth in Aftica, I wonder if the real reason for the death of the mother is not due to other causes either prior to or just after the childbirth. I don’t know.

Anyway, that is the situtaton as I understand it.
God bless.
Whit

Sorry, not true. Catholic teaching has always been that each life is inviolable and neither may be directly killed to save the other.

*Ectopic pregnancies are different in that it is the removal of the organ (so that it will not burst) that indirectly kills the child, not that the child is killed so that the mother can live. This invokes the so called dual effect doctrine wherein a) the act itself (removal of the tube) cannot be immoral; b) the bad effect (death of the child) is not a “means” of obtaining the good; c) the bad effect (death of the child) must not be the intended, but must be merely tolerated; and d) the good is sufficient to outweigh the bad. *

 

[yochumjy]

St Veronica:

The teaching of the Church is that abortion can NEVER be done.

You beat me to it, and with good examples.


John

 

[IoA]

From a completely philosophical perspective, the “except in the case of the health of the mother” is just as horrible as the other clauses.

You might object, but I say this precisely because our attention is oriented in the wrong direction. We ask questions like, “What about us economically?” or “Aren’t I too young?” or “What about my body?”

But the questions are always geared towards us, and never towards the baby itself. And a true Christian ethic tells us that that’s where our attention should always be geared.

 

[Racer_X]

They are two people. The mother is a person. The child is a person. You do not purposefully kill one person who would otherwise live for the sake of saving another person’s life.

I imagine there are scenarios where both are going to die and an action can be taken to save one or the other that leads to the death of the other. The ethics of the decision in this case is a fine one and I don’t pretend to personally know the answer.

But it is certainly(!) an immoral act to end the life of a baby who is otherwise in no great danger just because the mother is in danger. Both people–mother and child–are of equal moral value.

 

[Matt16_18]

Every pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk. If we allow abortion if a woman’s life is at risk, then we allow abortion for every pregnancy.

The Republican Party platform is essentially a pro-choice platform because it supports the exception clause for pregnancy if a woman’s life is in “danger”. The Republican platform is just weasel speak for preserving the status quo of legal abortion in the USA.

All a woman would have to do to get a legal abortion under the Republican Platform exception rule is to find a sympathetic doctor that agrees that her pregnancy has put her life at risk!

The Republican Platform is political double-talk, and no Catholic can support it.

 

[St_Veronica]

Matt16_18:

Every pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk. If we allow abortion if a woman’s life is at risk, then we allow abortion for every pregnancy.

The Republican Party platform is essentially a pro-choice platform because it supports the exception clause for pregnancy if a woman’s life is in “danger”. The Republican platform is just weasel speak for preserving the status quo of legal abortion in the USA.

All a woman would have to do to get a legal abortion under the Republican Platform exception rule is to find a sympathetic doctor that agrees that her pregnancy has put her life at risk!

The Republican Platform is political double-talk, and no Catholic can support it.

Please don’t derail this thread and turn it into a political one…that’s not what the person is asking about.

Thanks

SV

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It shouldn’t be surprising that people who consider themselves good Catholics feel that the church teaches that abortion is ok if the mother’s life is in danger–not when a huge proportion of Catholics also don’t believe in transubstantiation, or think that because Pope Paul didn’t issue an ex cathedra teaching that we can somehow disregard the teachings of “Humanae Vitae”. . . and let’s not even get in to the myriads of people who think that the church CANCELLED Friday penance in the 1960s, except for Lent.

but it is troubling. Very troubling.

We need adult, adolescent and youth CATHOLIC EDUCATION more badly now than at almost any point in history.

And, for the one who started the thread. . .your wife’s compassion for mothers in danger of death is commendable. We should all pray for those in danger of death. However, her LACK of compassion for the unborn children whom she would condemn in order to “save” those mothers is deplorable. Does she not trust that God is good, and that even if evil is allowed individually, that He is still God? Look at what has come about–our current abortion policy–because people thought that it was EVIL to “force” women into having children when they were in danger of poverty or other “worldly” issues. Millions and millions of dead babies are somehow LESS evil than living babies, even living in poverty? And before you ask, I was a single mother, I lived in poverty, and so did my children. I will probably never be rich in money or goods, but I didn’t think about whether it was “better” for me to have no children and a “chance” for greater wealth. How many people thought they were “comfortable” and lost money on Enron, for example? How many people have thought they were doomed to poverty and then found a good job just when they were at their wits’ end? You can’t second guess your future–or your present, even. You don’t know what cross you might have to bear. . .but shouldn’t it be GOD, who made you, who has the say on it, instead of you?

 

[Chris_C]

The principle that applies here is called “double effect.” In order for an action to be morally licit under this principle the accompanying death of the child must foreseen but not intended. There are other conditions, proportionality among them. A good moral theology handbook can give them to you (Outlines of Moral Theology from Roman Catholic Books is good.) RC’s should be conversant in this principle as it is often misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented to mean that ends justify means, which they never do.

Chris C.

 

[Chris_C]

sorry!
if I’d read the Barrister’s post carefully I wouldn’t have repeated what he said!

Chris C.

 

[Matt16_18]

St Veronica:

Please don’t derail this thread and turn it into a political one…that’s not what the person is asking about.

I am not trying to be political. Obviously, no Catholic can give their assent to the Democratic Party Platform either.

The question that has been raised is this: “Is it acceptable to have an abortion if a woman’s life is in danger?” The Catholic Church teaches that it is not, and that is why both the Democratic Party Platform AND the Republican Party Platform are not acceptable to Catholics – both parties agree that the exception clause for legalized abortion must be preserved for the case when a woman’s life is in “danger”.

If a Catholic is going to licitly vote for either Bush or Kerry, it will have to be because he or she opposes that candidate’s party platform of support for legal abortion. A Catholic could licitly vote for either Kerry or Bush if they thought that one of these candidates was more likely to support Catholic social teaching on issues other than abortion. But a Catholic could never licitly vote for either Bush or Kerry because they desired to cast a vote in favor of the Dem/Rep party platform planks concerning when abortion is legal.

Certainly a person posting on a Catholic apologetics forum should be able to make point this clear without being accused of furthering some hidden political agenda.

 

[whit]

Matt16_18:

Every pregnancy puts a woman’s life at risk. If we allow abortion if a woman’s life is at risk, then we allow abortion for every pregnancy.

The Republican Party platform is essentially a pro-choice platform because it supports the exception clause for pregnancy if a woman’s life is in “danger”. The Republican platform is just weasel speak for preserving the status quo of legal abortion in the USA.

All a woman would have to do to get a legal abortion under the Republican Platform exception rule is to find a sympathetic doctor that agrees that her pregnancy has put her life at risk!

The Republican Platform is political double-talk, and no Catholic can support it.

I think thou protests too much. Read on:

** Republican Party on Abortion **

** Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment **

We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

** Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action **

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000

Nowhere in the platform of the Republican Party as stated above does it state what you said. That is the platform under which Presidnet Bush was selected and elected.

God bless.
Whit

 

[Matt16_18]

whit

NGS Republican Party
Renewing America’s Purpose, Together!
2001 Platform: “The Politics of Promise”
by Representative Scott Daniel (R-NV) and Representative Don Johnson (R-TN)

… As a party that values the sanctity of life, we oppose the use of abortion as a means of birth control. Specifically, we call for a prohibition on all abortions except when the life of the mother is at stake.

 

[whit]

St Veronica:

The teaching of the Church is that abortion can NEVER be done.

Here’s a couple of examples of what can be done:

Woman is pregnant, has cancer. If the cancer treatments the woman receives have the side effect of causing the child to die, she has done nothing wrong. She can’t go have an abortion then have cancer treatments.

If a woman has a etopic pregnancy and the doctors must remove the fallopian tube to save her life, the life of the child will end.

SV

SV, Thanks for the reply and you are correct however, I am not incorrect either. I may not have been as explicit as you but the situation is this. The question was an either/or. The woman is not supposed to die according to the Church, in a pregnancy to save the life of the child. If it is an either/or, the life of the child is expendable. It is probably a medical rarity that that is the case but that is Church teaching. I am not a medical doctor and don’t know what may or may not cause these problems. But I do know that the mother is not supposed one to die in an actual either/or situation that was asked about.

**“required to save a woman’s life” **These are the words that were used and that was the question I was answering.
There is a saint who is honored by the Church because by her own volition gave up her life to save the life of her child in childbirth. I cannot remember her name but the reason she is honored is because she went against what would be the normal situation which is OK by the Church that we save the mother if there is an either/or situation. It was out of the ordinary and she is so honored for that reason. But that does not mean that a mother is supposed to die to save her child in childbirth.

And if you want to argue that that will never happen with modern medicine remember the lady spoken about is talking about Africa, not downtown LA or New York City.

BTW. part of our seemed disagreement is over the use of the term abortion. We normally think of an abortion as a means of just ending a pregnancy for whatever reason the mother states, including the "health’ of the mother. Well:

If a woman has a etopic pregnancy and the doctors must remove the fallopian tube to save her life, the life of the child will end.

this is also an abortion.
God bless,
Whit

 

[whit]

whit
NGS Republican Party
Renewing America’s Purpose, Together!
2001 Platform: “The Politics of Promise”
by Representative Scott Daniel (R-NV) and Representative Don Johnson (R-TN)

… As a party that values the sanctity of life, we oppose the use of abortion as a means of birth control. Specifically, we call for a prohibition on all abortions except when the life of the mother is at stake.

Hey Matt, thanks for the link to the site. If you look down further than where you grabbed the quotes you will see that additional information is given which includes the following:

** Natural Rights** - all men and women are endowed with certain inalienable and immutable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is erected by people, over people for the expressed purpose of protecting these rights from violation. The Republican Party was the spearhead for the elimination of slavery and was at the forefront of bringing the vote to women.

…"We, the Republican Party, also hold these truths to be self-evident, and will champion the cause of equal opportunity **and life for all. We believe that life is sacrosanct, the queen of the natural rights. As such, it deserves our government’s vigorous protection.
**
Now does this mean that the Republican Party is the be all and end all for the Catholic Church and all Catholics ? NO! But over all the Republican Party follows more closely the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church than any other party in the US. And there isn’t any Catholic Party so one has to go with one or the other. And as far as I am concerned the Democrat Party with it’s current leadership is well, I would be afraid to let them ever regain power.

And as to your argument re: the “life of the mother”, I would say that most people think that they are talking about the actual life of the mother as the Church does, not as some liberal doctor or judge or politician. That is why it only states life of the mother and not “in the case of rape or incest” too. But in actuality I would not be too surprised to see that added at some point in the future, unfortunately.

God bless.
Whit

 

[Matt16_18]

whit

And as to your argument re: the “life of the mother”, I would say that most people think that they are talking about the actual life of the mother as the Church does, not as some liberal doctor or judge or politician. That is why it only states life of the mother and not “in the case of rape or incest” too. But in actuality I would not be too surprised to see that added at some point in the future, unfortunately.

Many Catholics may think that is how the Republicans should interpret their exception clauses for abortion, but what the Republicans actually mean by their exception clauses should be probably be debated in the politics forum. One can only judge a tree by the fruit it bears. What have the Republicans done for the last four years to stem the tide of abortion? Nothing serious that I can see. The Republicans are great at giving a lot of empty talk about the evils of abortion, and not too great at delivering the goods. As a pro-life Catholic, I am disgusted by the Republican politicians who talk the talk, but won’t walk the walk. Many pro-life Catholics that I know feel the same way – the Republicans will say anything to be elected, but they are NEVER going to do anything serious about stopping abortion. I would love to be proved wrong though!

Don’t even get me started on the Democrats …

I am glad to see the pro-life stances in the Republican platform, but for me, the Republican platform exception clauses render their platform unacceptable.

It is similar to why I object to Billy Graham’s soteriology. Billy Graham is extremely liked and respected by most Catholics. But Billy Graham is a Southern Baptist, and Southern Baptists preach “Once Saved, Always Saved”. A part of Baptist OSAS doctrine is the belief that a “saved” man can die in unrepentant for mortal sin and still have the “assurance of eternal security”. The “exception clauses” for unrepentant mortal sin in Baptist OSAS soteriology makes Baptist soteriology unacceptable for Catholics.

If the Republicans would explicitly affirm that they accept the Catholic teaching concerning abortion, I would agree that a Catholic could accept the Republican platform. But right now, the Republican Party’s “exception” clauses for preserving legal abortion render their abortion planks suspect.

 

[condan]

Tim Skelton:

My wife is a Lutheran who is against abortion except in the cases where it is required to save a woman’s life. She is especially concerned about the significant number of young teen-age mothers that are dying in Africa during child birth. What is the Catholic Church’s teaching on Abortion in cases where a mother’s life is at stake?

Teenage girls who are dying in childbirth need c-sections not abortions.

Abortion is never licit and is always evil.