Complicated abortion question

[RedSoxFan45]

Hello all, I have a question on abortion that was brought up to me by my wife. I understand why abortion is wrong and so does she. She brought up a scenario where she said she doesn’t know if she couldn’t stick with the churches teachings. This was brought up because she knows someone this has happened to. This person she is very close to. Lets say you are many months pregnant, and the fluid that the baby lives in is ruptured. The doctor tells you that if you leave the baby in and carry it the rest of the way you will die 100%, yet the baby when born will only live an hour. The baby does not have lungs and they won’t be able to develop because of the lack of fluid. The person decides to induce Birth and the baby lives for less than an hour and passes away yet the mother gets to live. What is a catholic woman to do in that situation? She has 3 kids at home. Is she supposed to carry the baby and face sure death only to have the baby die shortly after birth? It would leave the 3 kids at home motherless. I think if any of us were in the baby’s position we would want our mother to live on if we were going to die anyway (if we could think on the level we are now at that stage in life.) I do not know how to answer my wife with an answer that would comfort her. My wife is pregnant right now and she asked me what I would want her to do if this happened to her. I do not know what to say. Any help, guidance and prayers would be welcome and appreciated

 

[FRATER_PAVLVS]

Is it all certain? Sounds awful.
How come the baby is still alive in ruptured fluid? Is it 100% alive? It’s tricky. What else do the medics say? Not enough info, really.

 

[rwoehmke]

This person she is very close to. Lets say you are many months pregnant, and the fluid that the baby lives in is ruptured. The doctor tells you that if you leave the baby in and carry it the rest of the way you will die 100%, yet the baby when born will only live an hour. The baby does not have lungs and they won’t be able to develop because of the lack of fluid.

To start with, when that amniotic fluid is lost labor may start soon. I have no idea if a baby can survive the loss of this fluid. As long as the placenta and embilical cord are still attached the baby continues to get oxygen and nutrients. If the baby dies in utero, it would be very easy to determine and the woman can than be induced or have a D & C. I am at loss to figure out why this woman’s life would be endangered. Babies die in utero fairly often and the mothers survive. Something about this story just doesn’t ring true.

 

[rwoehmke]

This was brought up because she knows someone this has happened to. This person she is very close to. Lets say you are many months pregnant, and the fluid that the baby lives in is ruptured. The doctor tells you that if you leave the baby in and carry it the rest of the way you will die 100%, yet the baby when born will only live an hour. The baby does not have lungs and they won’t be able to develop because of the lack of fluid. The person decides to induce Birth and the baby lives for less than an hour and passes away yet the mother gets to live.

Without amniotic fluid this babie’s chance to live is non-existent. Depending on the stage of development this baby if born by inducement has the best chance to live. Preemies as far along as about six months have lived. If the baby dies in utero and it is not expelled(spontaneous abortions or miscarriages do happen), the mother very well could die from an infection. However in a case like this, once that baby dies in utero, the doctors would be on top of it and at that point could legitimately induce or do a D&C, so I think the danger to the mother in this case is far overblown. Would some of today’s physicians give the advice described in the OP? Yes surely they would. They have no problem with abortion and that is the easy way out for them.

 

[Charybdis]

I don’t think this is that complicated at all. Given the situation with the baby and that it cannot live without the amniotic fluid, it must be delivered. Hopefully, it is old enough to survive but nothing was done directly to harm the infant, it must be delivered to give it the only chance it may have of living…

To all pregnant women, don’t worry too much about hypotheticals such as this. What happens, happens. Pray to the Lord that He give you a healthy baby and if not, then He will give you the grace you need to endure and see it through.

My wife and I found out that our last baby had only two vessels in his umbilical cord. Normally, babies have three vessels. We were rather worried as you can imagine. But after a lot of research and praying, we just let nature take its course. He was born last November and it 100% fine!

So, don’t worry too much about these things and give it all to the Lord to take care of for you!

God Bless!

 

[Ron_Conte]

direct and voluntary abortion is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

The situation, as you describe it, is not direct abortion, since the child is unable to survive either in or out of the womb. So saving the mother’s life by a procedure that is not directed at killing the child is moral.

However, I think that the medical information you have provided is not accurate, so I am answering the question as a hypothetical, not giving advice for a particular real situation.

 

[Nick9]

the principle of double-effect says that an act which is principally curative of the mother can have a side-effect of killing the fetus.

the conditions for the principle of double effect are:

1. the act performed is good as curative.
2. the good effect is the principle effect, the bad effect a tolerated side-effect.
3. the good effect is not attained through the evil one.
4. there is a sufficiently grave (proportionate) reason to act.

In this case (if it is a true case), it seems to me that the placenta containing the baby could rightly be removed if it was harming the mother’s health, which would both directly cure her and indirectly kill the baby. I am no expert, but have studied this topic a bit.

 

[RedSoxFan45]

Hi all, I know there were multiple threads (sorry about that) that I posted by accident. I know there were a few replies in the others as well, and I will say on this one to all the people who replied, thanks for the advice. It put my wife and my heart at ease. Praise the lord! I will make sure to pray for all who replied.

 

[zachattack936]

Also for the baby to live for just an hour is still quite important because that’s enough time for the baby to be baptized. By not having the abortion, she could be securing eternal life for her child.

 

[po18guy]

Hello all, I have a question on abortion that was brought up to me by my wife. I understand why abortion is wrong and so does she. She brought up a scenario where she said she doesn’t know if she couldn’t stick with the churches teachings. This was brought up because she knows someone this has happened to. This person she is very close to. Lets say you are many months pregnant, and the fluid that the baby lives in is ruptured. The doctor tells you that if you leave the baby in and carry it the rest of the way you will die 100%, yet the baby when born will only live an hour. The baby does not have lungs and they won’t be able to develop because of the lack of fluid. The person decides to induce Birth and the baby lives for less than an hour and passes away yet the mother gets to live. What is a catholic woman to do in that situation? She has 3 kids at home. Is she supposed to carry the baby and face sure death only to have the baby die shortly after birth? It would leave the 3 kids at home motherless. I think if any of us were in the baby’s position we would want our mother to live on if we were going to die anyway (if we could think on the level we are now at that stage in life.) I do not know how to answer my wife with an answer that would comfort her. My wife is pregnant right now and she asked me what I would want her to do if this happened to her. I do not know what to say. Any help, guidance and prayers would be welcome and appreciated

You should ask your priest, or call the diocese. Lay opinions count for nothing. But, know that God is the author and owner of our lives. When we place a higher value on earthly life than we do on eternal life, it separates us from God. No abortion is EVER justified. That imposes your own will over that of the Lord.

Christ’s peace.

 

[DianJo]

Go to the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), they have a good section on BioEthics. Good information there.

I think it’s www.usccb.org

 

[jean8]

Hello all, I have a question on abortion that was brought up to me by my wife. I understand why abortion is wrong and so does she. She brought up a scenario where she said she doesn’t know if she couldn’t stick with the churches teachings. This was brought up because she knows someone this has happened to. This person she is very close to. Lets say you are many months pregnant, and the fluid that the baby lives in is ruptured. The doctor tells you that if you leave the baby in and carry it the rest of the way you will die 100%, yet the baby when born will only live an hour. The baby does not have lungs and they won’t be able to develop because of the lack of fluid. The person decides to induce Birth and the baby lives for less than an hour and passes away yet the mother gets to live. What is a catholic woman to do in that situation? She has 3 kids at home. Is she supposed to carry the baby and face sure death only to have the baby die shortly after birth? It would leave the 3 kids at home motherless. I think if any of us were in the baby’s position we would want our mother to live on if we were going to die anyway (if we could think on the level we are now at that stage in life.) I do not know how to answer my wife with an answer that would comfort her. My wife is pregnant right now and she asked me what I would want her to do if this happened to her. I do not know what to say. Any help, guidance and prayers would be welcome and appreciated

This is a medical problem that doctors are trained to deal with. They take an oath to save lives.
This sounds like a situation where the mothers life is in danger.
The doctors would make an effort to save both , but if the baby will die, then he will concentrate on the mother. Ethics would be against him to not do otherwise.
Some folks are always looking for a loophole.
Are you?

God bless,
jean8

 

[Ron_Conte]

In this case (if it is a true case), it seems to me that the placenta containing the baby could rightly be removed if it was harming the mother’s health, which would both directly cure her and indirectly kill the baby. I am no expert, but have studied this topic a bit.

One cannot ‘remove the placenta’ if it is ‘harming the mother’s health’. This is not curative, and it does directly kill the prenatal. Also, this is not the medical situation that was proposed.

Direct abortion is never justified. However, indirect abortion is sometimes justified, under the principle of double effect, if the prenatal’s life cannot be saved.

 

[Nick9]

One cannot ‘remove the placenta’ if it is ‘harming the mother’s health’. This is not curative, and it does directly kill the prenatal. Also, this is not the medical situation that was proposed.

Direct abortion is never justified. However, indirect abortion is sometimes justified, under the principle of double effect, if the prenatal’s life cannot be saved.

I was thinking that the leaking fluid ‘sack’, whatever it is called, might be seen as the cause of the mother’s life-threatening condition and could therefore be removed with the fetus in it. It reminded me of ectopic pregnancies, in which the fetus develops inside the fallopian tube. My lecturer said that it was morally permissible to remove the section of tube which the fetus is in, thereby removing the fetus indirectly, to save the mother’s life. This used the principle of double-effect and seemed to me a comparable situation to the one under discussion now.

 

[Nick9]

Just to add that in the case of ectopic pregnancies, the mother and fetus are monitored until such a time as the fallopian tube is in danger of rupturing, so threatening the mother’s life, and then it can be removed under the principle of double effect.

 

[dancny]

What we have here is a lack of faith in God and in His Mercy.

True Story as told to me by my mother and other friends and relatives.

When my mother was pregnant with me there was also a tumor. if she carried me to term she would definately die he only choice was an abortion. This was 1956 and under the idea of saving the mother it was legal.

My mother, a devout catholic, refused. My sister, then 13 went to church and got a bottle of holy water. she drank some, rubbed some on her stomach and prayed.

The tumor disappered and she got stuck with me. There was no medical treatment for the tumor, no surgery, just faith. Believe it or not. So there is ALWAYS another alternative and that alternative is faith.

 

[Et_Cetera]

Also for the baby to live for just an hour is still quite important because that’s enough time for the baby to be baptized. By not having the abortion, she could be securing eternal life for her child.

So you’re saying that the mother should take all those risks so that a person can live for one miserable hour and be doused in water? I’m not really Catholic, but this is just so illogical. Once again, I’'m not trying to be offensive, but please just think about this.

 

[wanner47]

So you’re saying that the mother should take all those risks so that a person can live for one miserable hour and be doused in water? I’m not really Catholic, but this is just so illogical. Once again, I’'m not trying to be offensive, but please just think about this.

Given the importance of baptism, yes, it is entirely worth it.

Do some research on what Catholics believe about baptism and maybe you’ll understand. This is a good place to start.

 

[Swan]

Given the importance of baptism, yes, it is entirely worth it.

Do some research on what Catholics believe about baptism and maybe you’ll understand. This is a good place to start.

I’m not trying to be offensive either, but do you really believe that your all-loving God would condemn a newborn baby because it hadn’t been baptized??? That seems a bit harsh, to put it mildly.

 

[wanner47]

I’m not trying to be offensive either, but do you really believe that your all-loving God would condemn a newborn baby because it hadn’t been baptized??? That seems a bit harsh, to put it mildly.

The Catechism says it better than I can:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments…

The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. (CCC 1257 & 1261)