Clarification of Catholic Teaching on Abortion

[The_Barrister]

(ending an ectopic pregnancy)

this is also an abortion.
God bless,
Whit

Let’s be careful here. Semantics is important in this arena.

This conclusion is incorrect. An abortion is the purposefully induced termination of a pregnancy by expulsion of the unborn child by any number of methods. The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child.

With respect to an ectopic pregnancy, the technique used to cure an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the body part in which the child is attached, the effect of which is that the child dies. It is expected that the child’s death is an unintentional but naturally-occurring consequence of the removal of the body part. (The dual effect).

It is a distinction with a difference.

 

[St_Veronica]

The Barrister:

Let’s be careful here. Semantics is important in this arena.

This conclusion is incorrect. An abortion is the purposefully induced termination of a pregnancy by expulsion of the unborn child by any number of methods. The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child.

With respect to an ectopic pregnancy, the technique used to cure an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the body part in which the child is attached, the effect of which is that the child dies. It is expected that the child’s death is an unintentional but naturally-occurring consequence of the removal of the body part. (The dual effect).

It is a distinction with a difference.

Amen well said.

SV

 

[kmktexas]

If it is an either/or, the life of the child is expendable.

No it is not.

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.

I think this is St. Gianna Molloti (?). I probably didn’t spell it right. She refused medical treatment that would have endangered or killed her unborn child. It wasn’t a case of abortion or not. She underwent the treatment after the child was born but she died anyway. This was a heroic act because, she could have accepted the treatment under the concept of double effect. This would not have been true if the “treatment” was a direct abortion. She did not die in childbirth but she refused to put her life ahead of that of her child. While this heroic act undoubtedly spearheaded her cause for Sainthood, she was cannonized after a thorough investigation of her life and the verification of miracles attributed to her intercession.

 

[Matt16_18]

The Barrister:

Let’s be careful here. Semantics is important in this arena.

This conclusion is incorrect. An abortion is the purposefully induced termination of a pregnancy by expulsion of the unborn child by any number of methods. The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child.

With respect to an ectopic pregnancy, the technique used to cure an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the body part in which the child is attached, the effect of which is that the child dies. It is expected that the child’s death is an unintentional but naturally-occurring consequence of the removal of the body part. (The dual effect).

It is a distinction with a difference.

And what a big difference that is!

The Republican platform allows legalized abortion when a mother’s life is in “danger”. That is why no Catholic can accept the Republican Party’s platform on abortion. The Republican’s platform is far better than the Democrat’s platform, no doubt about that, but it is still an unacceptable pro-choice platform because it protects legalized abortion.

If our nation accepts the Republican’s “exception clause” for legalized abortion, then every woman in our nation that wants an abortion will be able to legally obtain one.

 

[Ellen]

whit

What have the Republicans done for the last four years to stem the tide of abortion? Nothing serious that I can see.

President Bush has tried to appoint several pro-life judges to the federal bench, but the pro-abortion democrats in the senate won’t even allow for an up or down vote on them, as their “litmus test” for an acceptable judge is that he/she be pro-abortion, no one else is allowed a chance.

We must remember that the Pres. can’t just pass a law revoking Roe v. Wade. Even when states manage to pass laws restricting abortions (banning p.b. abortion, or passing parental notification laws, etc., which many have done in the last several years), the courts, most under the control of Planned Unparenthood and ACLU (anti-Christian liberty union), always block their enforcement and declare them unconstitutional.

If you really think a vote for a Republican is the same, abortion wise, as a vote for a Democrat, think of this: Do you want your minor child to be able to have an abortion at taxpayer expense w/o your consent or knowledge throughout her entire pregnancy for absolutely any (meaning “no”) reason? The Republicans will at least try to stop this situation; the Democrats will insist it’s her “constitutional right” under the alleged “privacy clause”, and that abortion is a “medical procedure” that all women should have access to (even if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves).

The real shame in all of this is that Bush (and I think most Republicans) isn’t even Catholic. Kerry and many Democrats claim to be (and insist they deserve to receive the Eucharist).

 

[Debbie]

Matt16_18:

…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.

Dear Matt16_18,

There is no Catholic social teaching that is more important than the basic God-given right to life. There is no trump card higher than abortion–not even the death penalty. Here is a link to Fr. Frank Pavone’s recent article “Death Penalty for the Innocent.”

Please take a few minutes to read Catholic Answers: “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics.”

Supporting abortion is a non-negotiable. Voting for someone who supports and promotes abortion is a sin.

We will not win the war on abortion overnight. Hearts must be changed–laws cannot be crammed down people throats. If a law were to be passed totally banning abortion, people would rebel. Not because they think abortion is a good thing, but because they’d be upset to be told they had no “choice” in the matter.

In today’s political climate, no party would stand a chance on a totally pro-life platform, so we must do what we can to promote the lesser of two evils (or vote for an independent who is on a totally pro-life platform).

Either way, no Catholic with a well-formed conscience can vote for Kerry. Many will not like to read that because their “choice” has been taken away. The best “choice” is to remain faithful to God, His Church and her teachings.

AMDG

Debbie

 

[whit]

Originally Posted by whit *(ending an ectopic pregnancy)

this is also an abortion.
God bless,
Whit *

The Barrister:

Let’s be careful here. Semantics is important in this arena.

This conclusion is incorrect. An abortion is the purposefully induced termination of a pregnancy by expulsion of the unborn child by any number of methods. The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child.

With respect to an ectopic pregnancy, the technique used to cure an ectopic pregnancy is to remove the body part in which the child is attached, the effect of which is that the child dies. It is expected that the child’s death is an unintentional but naturally-occurring consequence of the removal of the body part. (The dual effect).

It is a distinction with a difference.

Your definition is just that. Your definition. You are the person who put in the additional factor of “The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child.” *t have already stated over and over the purpose of the abortion in these cases are to save the life of the mother. You write your own definition of abortion and then plaster it on the case at hand to prove your point. You’re goofy and I am not going to let you get away with it. It seems that people are getting all wired up about just the term of “abortion” and forgetting that some procedures actually do have in rare cases, a purpose.

Definition of abortrion from Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary:

Abortion 1. The premature expulsion of a fetus; ex. a miscarriage. 2. Such expulsion induced artificially. 3. The defective result of a premature birth. 4. The partial or complete arrest of development.

Nowhere in these definitions is there any deliniation of purpose. Definition #1. is not done purposely by the mother and yet it is an abortion. Definition 2. is indicative of an the use of contraceptions, yes against Catholic doctrine. Definitition 3. happened to my twin sister. We were both born at approximately 6 months. I lived. She was not strong enough. She didn’t. This situation is illicit if the there is medical help available and it is not used to attempt to save the life of the child. 4. indicative of an ectopic pregnancy. The purpose was to save the life of the mother and the pregnancy is so early that there is no way to save the life of the child.

But is also the way of ending pregnancies by the use of abortion as a contraceptive and for child selection. This is also illicit when us in this way.

You all are going totally nuts because there are doctors and others and mothers who are willingly killing millions of babies each year and that is all you can see. You don’t like the term so you have put your own determination of it’s meaning on it. Well, it has a lot of meanings many of which are not illicit especially when used ethically and morally. You also seem to be thinking that because we have good medical facitilies here in the US they have the same in Africa. No they don’t.

Continued…

Whit
*

 

[whit]

continued from above…
by Whit
*
Someone made a cute statement that “C” sections can be used instead of an abortion. Well, a “C” section can be used as a method of abortiont too. In fact it is used and an abortion is the result often the case when the baby is too young to survive. It is not used in the abortion mills because that would require the abortionist to use normal medical facilities and then he would have to live up to normal medical requirements and regulations.

Now for the last thing I am going to say about this: My father was a physician and surgeon with 6 different internships in major hospitals in the northeast which included family practice and obgyn. He settled on general practice because he felt he could do the most good in that area. He was also a surgeon who delivered probably thousands of babies.

My mother was an RN, a devout Catholic, and she is the person who told me of the situation of abortion being alllowed by the Church in special cases but only to save the life of the mother and only in either/or cases and that under Catholic doctrine it was the mother’s choice.

And both of my parents worked in the Catholic hospital in town and my mother was trained as an RN at that same hospital run by Catholic nuns. I forget the order, possibly BVMs.

And my father’s primary hospital affiliation was also with that same hospital.

Remember, there are cases in medicine where there is just no way to save the life of the child and the mother needs immediate medical care. You are just going to have to learn to live with it. It is still an abortion even if it is NOT done just to kill the baby.

God bless.
Whit*

 

[whit]

OK, here is what I found in the New Advent site on Abortion and it should answer all of our quesitons, or most of them.

New Advent - Abortion… go down to the area where it speaks of obstetrical abortions. It is about 30% down the page.

This should take care of most of the questions.

And I actually learned something by reading it. It seems that I misrembered some of what my mother told me as it seems that according to this, to actually remove the child to save the mother before the child is viable is wrong. But unless I am reading this wrong the mother can be given medication to save her life if the unintended consequence is that it does harm to the child.

And to the extent I have to eat crow I will eat crow.

Anyway there is the information.

God bless,
Whit

 

[timbo1980]

Abortion is right if it is done to save the life of the mother.
Case and point:

Senator Santorum’s wife was pregnant with a baby and the doctors saw that the baby would surely die (too young to live if born) due to a medical poblem. However, they could do an operation on the baby that may fix the problem. So of course the Santorums agreed. The operation was a complete success and the baby would be just fine. However, hours after the surgery, the doctors discovered that the mother had developed an infection in her womb. She had them treat her with antibiodics but because the infection was moving through the amniotic fluid, they had limited effect. The doctors told her that she would be fine and could recover from the infection but they would have to induce her into labor. She resisted almost to the point of death when finally her husband conviced her. Once she was induced the infection left her and she recovered.

Now that fits my definition of an abortion but is completely justified. If it had not been done, two lives would have been lost, not just one. So how can you say the Chruch never supports abortion? It would certainly support this case. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

 

[St_Veronica]

timbo1980:

Abortion is right if it is done to save the life of the mother.
Case and point:

Senator Santorum’s wife was pregnant with a baby and the doctors saw that the baby would surely die (too young to live if born) due to a medical poblem. However, they could do an operation on the baby that may fix the problem. So of course the Santorums agreed. The operation was a complete success and the baby would be just fine. However, hours after the surgery, the doctors discovered that the mother had developed an infection in her womb. She had them treat her with antibiodics but because the infection was moving through the amniotic fluid, they had limited effect. The doctors told her that she would be fine and could recover from the infection but they would have to induce her into labor. She resisted almost to the point of death when finally her husband conviced her. Once she was induced the infection left her and she recovered.

Now that fits my definition of an abortion but is completely justified. If it had not been done, two lives would have been lost, not just one. So how can you say the Chruch never supports abortion? It would certainly support this case. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

This is not abortion. The Church absolutely does NOT allow for a medical abortion. What you are talking about is the double effect which you can (or should have already) read about in this thread.

SV

 

[Matt16_18]

Debbie

Supporting abortion is a non-negotiable.

That is why I am opposed to the Republican platform. The Republican platform supports legalized abortion through the exception clauses in that platform. I am a 100%, hardcore to the bone, no compromises allowed, pro-life Catholic.

Voting for someone who supports and promotes abortion is a sin.

Not necessarily. Both Bush and Kerry are running on party platforms that support legalized abortion. Does that mean that a Catholic cannot vote for either Bush or Kerry? Not according to Cardinal Ratzinger.

Interim Reflections Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians

Cardinal McCarrick Bishops’ Spring Meeting Denver June 15, 2004

… It is important to note that Cardinal Ratzinger makes a clear distinction between public officials and voters, explaining that a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil only if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion. However, when a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted if there are proportionate reasons.

usccb.org/bishops/intreflections.htm

*In today’s political climate, no party would stand a chance on a totally pro-life platform, so we must do what we can to promote the lesser of two evils (or vote for an independent who is on a totally pro-life platform). *

Will we ever have a totally pro-life candidate from the Republicans if pro-life Christians keep accepting the compromises dished up by the Republicans? If pro-life Christians punish the Republicans by voting for a third party platform that is uncompromised, perhaps the Republicans would quit their compromising. But that is a discussion for the Politics board.

• Either way, no Catholic with a well-formed conscience can vote for Kerry.*

Both Bush and Kerry are going to run on a party platforms that support legalized abortion. As I said before, the Church teaching is that no Catholic could licitly vote for Bush or Kerry as a positive choice to support either party’s stance on abortion. But that does not mean a Catholic cannot vote for either Bush or Kerry - “when a Catholic **does not share ** a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted if there are proportionate reasons.”

 

[chimakuni]

timbo1980:

Abortion is right if it is done to save the life of the mother.
Case and point:

Senator Santorum’s wife was pregnant with a baby and the doctors saw that the baby would surely die (too young to live if born) due to a medical poblem. However, they could do an operation on the baby that may fix the problem. So of course the Santorums agreed. The operation was a complete success and the baby would be just fine. However, hours after the surgery, the doctors discovered that the mother had developed an infection in her womb. She had them treat her with antibiodics but because the infection was moving through the amniotic fluid, they had limited effect. The doctors told her that she would be fine and could recover from the infection but they would have to induce her into labor. She resisted almost to the point of death when finally her husband conviced her. Once she was induced the infection left her and she recovered.

Now that fits my definition of an abortion but is completely justified. If it had not been done, two lives would have been lost, not just one. So how can you say the Chruch never supports abortion? It would certainly support this case. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

What is your source on this? God Bless you -

 

[1ke]

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?

Abortion is always and everywhere WRONG. There are no exceptions. It is always wrong to take an innocent life. There are no “circumstances” that make it OK.

The Church teaches that we must always try to save BOTH the mother and the child. A direct abortion is always a grave moral evil.

 

[1ke]

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.

You are 100% wrong. The Church teaches that abortion is NEVER a moral choice. It is always and everywhere a moral evil.

 

[1ke]

whit:
Your definition is just that. Your definition. You are the person who put in the additional factor of “The purpose of an induced abortion is to end the pregnancy by killing the unborn child.” *t have already stated over and over the purpose of the abortion in these cases are to save the life of the mother. You write your own definition of abortion and then plaster it on the case at hand to prove your point. You’re goofy and I am not going to let you get away with it. It seems that people are getting all wired up about just the term of “abortion” and forgetting that some procedures actually do have in rare cases, a purpose.

Definition of abortrion from Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary:

Abortion 1. The premature expulsion of a fetus; ex. a miscarriage. 2. Such expulsion induced artificially. 3. The defective result of a premature birth. 4. The partial or complete arrest of development.

Nowhere in these definitions is there any deliniation of purpose. Definition #1. is not done purposely by the mother and yet it is an abortion. Definition 2. is indicative of an the use of contraceptions, yes against Catholic doctrine. Definitition 3. happened to my twin sister. We were both born at approximately 6 months. I lived. She was not strong enough. She didn’t. This situation is illicit if the there is medical help available and it is not used to attempt to save the life of the child. 4. indicative of an ectopic pregnancy. The purpose was to save the life of the mother and the pregnancy is so early that there is no way to save the life of the child.

But is also the way of ending pregnancies by the use of abortion as a contraceptive and for child selection. This is also illicit when us in this way.

You all are going totally nuts because there are doctors and others and mothers who are willingly killing millions of babies each year and that is all you can see. You don’t like the term so you have put your own determination of it’s meaning on it. Well, it has a lot of meanings many of which are not illicit especially when used ethically and morally. You also seem to be thinking that because we have good medical facitilies here in the US they have the same in Africa. No they don’t.

Continued…

Whit
*

Whit, you are confusing a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) with a procured abortion (an overt act with the express purpose of killing the baby.

Your mother may have been an RN and devout Catholic, but your mother was incorrect.

The Catechism spells it out clearly. See paragraphs 2270-2275:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected **absolutely ** from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person-- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of **every ** procured abortion. This teaching has not chagned and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

 

[Matt16_18]

1ke:

Whit, you are confusing a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) with a procured abortion (an overt act with the express purpose of killing the baby.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person-- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of **every ** procured abortion. This teaching has not chagned and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

This is exactly why no Catholic can support the Republican Party platform plank on abortion.

 

[carrieloon]

Why is an ectopic pregnancy even listed as being a viable pregnancy that was terminated?

An ectopic pregnancy can never be carried to term. It is a conception that occurs in a fallopian tube. An embryo can NEVER grow big enough to be able to live outside the tube. The tube will rupture first. So why is this option being held up as something morally reprehensible that the mother would choose? The baby will die regardless. There is no way around that. So, to me, the question becomes whether a responsible Catholic would allow a fallopian tube to burst and cause pain and suffering, in light of the fact that the baby won’t live either way?

In addition, partial or complete arrest of development can mean lots of things; it is not necessarily limited to an ectopic pregnancy.

Just my thoughts…

 

[Seatuck]

Carriloon,

An ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus. Not just the fallopian tube. Rare occurences happen where embros attempt attatchment on other organs etc. They are usually absorbed by the body. This would be a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. On rare occaisions an ectopic pregnancy can occur which does not result in death of mother or fetus. There have been cases of women who have brought to term babies outside the uterus. With the case of an ectopic in fallopian tube they too on rare occaisions do not result in death. The tube gradually splits open and the if the body is able to provide a suitable living environment the baby can and has (extreme rarity) survived.
So in the case of a removal of the fallopian tube the doctor must be making an accurate judgement that the fetus is indeed dying by the tube rupturing or infection. They aren’t really supposed to remove the part of the fallopian tube immediately upon discovering an ectopic pregnancy the way they often do. The fetus must be actively dying.

 

[loyola_rambler]

Condon’s got it right. Any pregnant woman who’s life is in danger from giving birth needs good medical care, not a quick abortion. The answer is to raise the education, social and economic conditions of those affected and to make sure there is a level of quality medical care available to them.

Several years ago I was assigned to the Ethics committee at my university. The university happens to own a very large, well-respected hospital and we received the guidelines from the NCCB/USCC, along with the “cliff notes” of what if’s and therefore’s. Basically, the only exception for an abortion in Catholicism is when both the mother and baby will die and the mother can not possibly survive if the pregnancy continues. What’s an example? Well, one that I remember is if there’s abdominal trauma which has caused the placenta to partially separate or the uterus has ruptured and the mother is bleeding to death. In that case, the attempt must be made to save both, but if the baby is not viable and the mother’s in immediate risk of death, then the ruptured organ must be removed or fixed even if it means death of the infant.

The exceptions to the Church’s stance are extremely narrow and are very difficult for most doctors to follow. For one thing, in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, the stance is that it must rupture before it can be removed. You’ll be hard pressed to find many American doctors who are willing to wait that long, especially since it contradicts the standard of care that the states impose upon them. So the issue is really one for the doctor to struggle with much more than it being one for us women to reconcile. We need to make sure our doctors are well-versed in the precepts of our faith and aren’t unduly coercing us into something that violates our faith.