Complicated abortion question

[Swan]

The Catechism says it better than I can:

What about God’s mercy, as mentioned in your quote? Don’t you think God’s mercy will take care of the baby? Again, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, this just seems to fly in the fact of all I’ve ever been taught about God’s love and mercy.

 

[wanner47]

What about God’s mercy, as mentioned in your quote? Don’t you think God’s mercy will take care of the baby? Again, I’m not trying to be disrespectful, this just seems to fly in the fact of all I’ve ever been taught about God’s love and mercy.

I think that’s a very real possibility.

I hope and pray that the baby I lost via miscarriage in December 2006 is in heaven with God right now. But I don’t know for sure, which is why I wish s/he could have been born so as to be baptized, even if s/he would have only lived an hour.

 

[Et_Cetera]

But certainly, as a thinking human being, you can see that the idea of a child being punished for something over which he or she had no control is preposterous.

 

[wanner47]

But certainly, as a thinking human being, you can see that the idea of a child being punished for something over which he or she had no control is preposterous.

No one asks to inherit original sin, but it’s there nonetheless.

As a thinking human being, I trust in God, and in His Church. His Church says that babies should be baptized as soon as possible, and given every chance to get baptized.

Do I think unbaptized babies go to Hell? No. Do I think they go to Heaven? I’m not sure. I know that my husband and I had fully planned to get our baby baptized after s/he was born, but that decision was taken out of our hands by his/her death. According to our priest, s/he was still baptized via baptism of desire, and that comforts me – but it would be a bigger comfort to know for sure, which is why I wished we’d had the opportunity to baptize him or her.

 

[adrift]

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

There is something wrong with what you post. Why would a Dr say it is a 100 death for the mother? This is false. I lost my ambiotic fluid my Dr. never said I was endanger but my baby could be. The lost of fluid is a big negative for the child. The effect would depend on how many months of gestation. The statement that the baby does not have lungs would mean that this is the first month of the pregnancy less than that. When fluid is loss, normally it induces labor.

Something does not add up with this scenario.

 

[Seatuck]

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.

You are on the right track but no you couldn’t remove just the placenta.That would be directly attacking the babies life support. There would have to be an induction of labor or a C-section to bring the baby out. There are multiple things to be considered. Is there a possiblility the placenta will heal and retain fluid? The doctors would watch and monitor for this. If this is not happening then the induction would occur especially if mother and or baby were in distress. Depending on how many weeks gestation the baby is at then there is the possiblility of lung maturing medicines, etc.

The reason you cite has been expressly forbidden by most moral teachers in the example of giving Methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy. The Methotrexate works first to dissolve the placental tissue then it moves on the the fetus to hasten dissolving it . This is not allowed as it is directly attacking the placenta and the babies life support.

 

[RedSoxFan45]

There is something wrong with what you post. Why would a Dr say it is a 100 death for the mother? This is false. I lost my ambiotic fluid my Dr. never said I was endanger but my baby could be. The lost of fluid is a big negative for the child. The effect would depend on how many months of gestation. The statement that the baby does not have lungs would mean that this is the first month of the pregnancy less than that. When fluid is loss, normally it induces labor.

Something does not add up with this scenario.

The post is based on the scenario my wife told me. She happens to know someone this happened to. The facts I laid out might be a bit off as I had a long discussion with her after she told me, plus it happened years ago. That’s not the point anyway; I was just trying to lay out a scenario to get an idea what is morally just to do in a situation similar to where the wife’s life is in danger. I trust god and the wisdom he gives the church, and I was just trying to get an idea on what the church thinks about this. I can’t imagine what it would be like if I had to look my wife in the eye and say “Don’t worry about what the doctor thinks we have to trust god and pray that you live.” Especially if she already had kids like the scenario above. My wife is pregnant with our first child now and obviously this topic is important to her because like I said, it’s happened to someone close to her. I’m not looking for an excuse for an abortion at all. Losing the child would be a huge blow to my heart, my wives heart and especially the soon to be grandparents. I hope this clears things up.

 

[Nick9]

You are on the right track but no you couldn’t remove just the placenta.That would be directly attacking the babies life support. There would have to be an induction of labor or a C-section to bring the baby out. There are multiple things to be considered. Is there a possiblility the placenta will heal and retain fluid? The doctors would watch and monitor for this. If this is not happening then the induction would occur especially if mother and or baby were in distress. Depending on how many weeks gestation the baby is at then there is the possiblility of lung maturing medicines, etc.

The reason you cite has been expressly forbidden by most moral teachers in the example of giving Methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy. The Methotrexate works first to dissolve the placental tissue then it moves on the the fetus to hasten dissolving it . This is not allowed as it is directly attacking the placenta and the babies life support.

I see what you mean. Removing the placenta is a direct attack on the baby and so the principle of double-effect doesn’t apply. Fair enough

 

[Pinkyyy]

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 does not make sense. First of all, let me get technical. I get what you are saying, BUT…first of all, if there is a small rupture, the fluid keeps re-building. I know this, as I had a rupture. My son’s fluids were a little low in the sac so my dr said to drink more water. This creates more fluid to compensate the fluid draining. If the rupture is too large and this does not work the baby will die unless it’s born because the rupture of that size would cause a baby to not recieve the nutrients from the placenta that it needs to live (not the fluid, but the nutrients or food from the placenta). If that happened, admittance to the hospital should happen and constant monitoring of the baby would be in order. Steroids need to be given immediately and if need be, the baby should be taken. The steroid helps immediately.

Okay, let me go further. A baby can live at 21 weeks, and they have great steroids out there to mature a baby’s lungs - we’ll use the example you were talking about. Again, I went into premature labor at 27 weeks and they immediately started me on steroids. In fact, if I were to get pregnant again, my doctor said they will give me steroids again in the middle of the pregnancy. My baby was born less than 2 days after the first steroid injection and when he was born his lungs were so advanced that he could breath on his own without help - that is a miracle for a 2 pounder.

The example you give is unlikely because in that situation, the doctor would monitor the mother every week and give steroids. and if the baby begins to be distressed, they would be able to take the baby. If the mother will die if the pregnancy goes to term, and the baby is too young to live, then the simple solution is to give steroids and try to make to at least 25 weeks (preferably 30, but 25 is still good) and take the baby.

Even if they say the baby won’t be able to make it much longer in the womb, if the mother is over 21 weeks they can at least give steroids and try to wait 2 days to let the steroids work.

I know what you saying, but I’ve lived through something similar. I don’t see how carrying the baby to term would impact the mother’s health - that’s what doesn’t make sense.

I guess I don’t know what’s happening with this mother, but I would get a second opinion, because as far as I know, the baby does not need to be born and left to die in this way for the mother’s health. Hellp Syndrome and other conditions can affect the mother’s health and if the baby is over 21 weeks, they can try to stabalize the mother and take the baby only when necessary. Of course if the baby is under 21 weeks along, it doesn’t really have a chance, but I don’t see why the mother can’t remain pregnant for just another 4 weeks or more in this kind of situation. With HELLP, no maybe she can’t make it that long, but with a rupture of the sack I don’t see why. Well, like I said, I guess we need more information like is the rupture creating internal bleeding for her?

Now I am rambling…my prayers are with this person and tell your wife to relax (although believe me, I know this is hard).

 

[kage_ar]

But certainly, as a thinking human being, you can see that the idea of a child being punished for something over which he or she had no control is preposterous.

Where do you get the idea that allowing the child to be born and live is punishment? Is it no cruel to kill the baby by buring it alive with saline in the womb? How about ripping it apart while alive in the womb - maybe it is less punitive to simply deliver all but the head and then stab it in the head.

Heavens have mercy, to be born and live even one hour, to be able to look on your mother’s face and feel the hand of your father is not punishment.

 

[rwoehmke]

. If the rupture is too large and this does not work the baby will die unless it’s born because the rupture of that size would cause a baby to not receive the nutrients from the placenta that it needs to live (not the fluid, but the nutrients or food from the placenta). If that happened, admittance to the hospital should happen and constant monitoring of the baby would be in order.
.

Nutrients do not come via the amnionic fluid but through the embilical cord. Yes, sometimes the rupture is small and fluid can be rebuilt, but a major break probably means a dead baby.

If the baby is very early term the amniotic sack would be very small and in my opinion is not likely the case in this story, so we are not just very early stage. The problem with the mother’s life develops when a baby dies in utero and the fetus and placenta are not expelled or only partially expelled. In such cases there may be continuous, possibly severe bleeding. After a time this dead material whether baby or placental tissue can lead to an infection which could be life threatening.

At the stage that I think we are talking there should be a heart beat and monitoring would indicate whether the baby was dead or alive. Once dead it needs to be removed or expelled.

I think the young mother in this case needs to be reassured that the vast majority of pregnancies, where the baby is not aborted, go just fine. God’s design for new life actually works quite well. But it is normal for first time parents to have lots of worries and concerns, particularly when they hear the rare horror story.