T
Theo520
Guest
Surgical Abortion is a subset of Birth Control, and miscarriage is not considered a form of birth control.
- Status
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
A very, very, very extreme case where, I feel, an abortion would be necessary would be if a nine-year-old girl was raped and she was able to become pregnant. Obviously, a little girl could not be expected to live through the carrying of and the birth of a child. I don’t know if it’s possible that a girl who has had her period by that age would be able to become pregnant. But if this happened, you couldn’t let her die. In such a case, I think it would be necessary. Also to add, a case like that is the only time I feel it’s, not so much “all right” to do, but necessary.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I agree with you but there are a lot of folks who won’t .
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
Actually, to let the nine-year-old girl die would be morally wrong too. Either way, one of them will die, if such an extreme case could happen. It would be very sad, but in such a case I would have to say that saving the life of the little girl would mean more. I say this as someone who is vehemently against abortion.
R
Rau
Guest
Correction: You are vehemently against abortions except for some abortions!
You are right only if the Church is wrong.
Your conclusion generally arises from our capacity to more readily identify with the mother than the child. Thus, we see one’s life as more valuable (first error) and then we believe the morality of the act to murder can be justified on the basis the life of greater value is save (second error, the error of “consequentialism”).
Alas, the decision to **murder **the child certainly is counter to crystal clear doctrine which is that the intentional killing of an innocent is murder and always forbidden. [If by gunning down a class of innocent kindergarten children, you could stop a larger wrong being committed, would it be morally right to pull the trigger on the children? No. For such thinking merely compares consequences and ignores the act itself - an intrinsically evil act.]
The alternative course is not, by inaction, to kill the mother. Nothing in Church teaching prevents medical steps directed to save lives at risk, even if such treatment may lead to the unintended (but unavoidable) death of one. We need to consider what doctors can do short of murdering someone.
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
The nine-year-old child in this case would still be a child, certainly not to be classified as a woman or a mother. She would be a child, herself, and just as innocent as the baby she might be carrying. If all of the doctors in the world would tell the parents of this nine-year-old girl who was already so horribly violated that, for sure, she would die if this baby grew inside of her, what would be done? Let the little girl die? I can’t help but think that’s just awful, and, in a way, placing her life as less important. This would not be the typical case of feeling sorrier for the woman. I don’t condone that. I’m talking about a nine-year-old little girl
R
Rau
Guest
I understand your emotion - I am not blind to it either. But, you assume the only course is to murder the baby (evil act, good motivation). And you conclude the act is good. And your basis is compassion for the girl (mother) you can see.The nine-year-old child in this case would still be a child, certainly not to be classified as a woman or a mother. She would be a child, herself, and just as innocent as the baby she might be carrying. If all of the doctors in the world would tell the parents of this nine-year-old girl who was already so horribly violated that, for sure, she would die if this baby grew inside of her, what would be done? Let the little girl die? I can’t help but think that’s just awful, and, in a way, placing her life as less important. This would not be the typical case of feeling sorrier for the woman. I don’t condone that. I’m talking about a nine-year-old little girl
Veritatis Splendor (John Paul II) teaches something different.
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
Yes, but what I was saying was…If there was absolutely no way, even after trying everything possible, that the little girl would for certainty die if the baby (at possibly an early stage of development) was not removed from her, what should happen? Should the little girl just be let to die, in which case the baby would die along with her? I’m afraid it just doesn’t make sense to me. They will both die, in this case. Please, please, please, there must be something justifiable in all of this.
R
Rau
Guest
Is your alternative course to murder the baby? Medical staff may morally take all possible steps to save the lives which are in their hands, but a decision to murder one is not licit. It has ever been thus.
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
In the end, the little girl and the baby both would die. What an awful ending.
R
Rau
Guest
Unlikely these days. Not so in centuries past.
But it comes down to whether you believe there are intrinsically evil acts or not. Access Veritatis Splendor and look for the section discussing Consequentialism and Proportionalism.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
How do you know that? When my son was a baby he had to have surgery. That morning a 12 year old girl was brought to the emergency room with stomach pains. It turns out she was in labor.
She went through an entire pregnancy with no medical care and hid her pregnancy (or maybe she didn’t know) but she didn’t die.
P
phil19034
Guest
In Catholic Morality, intent is key.
You are using an example of a 9 year old girl being pregnant due to rape.
First, the fact that she is pregnant means that her body is ready (at least on the inside). However, if she was still small, she would most likely be similar to a midget giving birth, or a mother giving birth to multiple babies at once. Perhaps she would need a c-section or deliver 4-6 weeks early.
Now back to intent. If the baby dies as a result of attempting to keep the mother alive, which results in the baby’s unintended death, that is not abortion.
When the mother’ slice is in danger, it is acceptable to do everything possible to save both the mother and child, and if the child dies as an unintended consequence, then it is sad but morally ok. Same if only the mother’s life is in danger, if a health unborn baby unintentionally dies as a result of attempting to save the mother’s life, it’s morally ok.
What’s no ok, is simply aborting as a precaution, or intentionally killing the baby to save mom.
Doctors are sworn to cause no harm. Morally, they must do everything in their power to save both. Just like the doctors would never deliberately kill mom in order to save baby, they must not deliberately kill baby.
Plus, there are too many instances where doctors told moms that they (or baby) would never survive until baby was full term; yet mom and baby both lived.
Today, because of malpractice insurance, many doctors are quick to recommend abortion (even calling it something else) when there is a chance for mom to have complications, even when those changes are under 50%.
Plus those tests are not always accurate… My wife’s friend was told by the doctors that their daughter had a 70% chance of being born with Downs Syndrome. The doctor suggestion terminating the pregnancy. My wife’s friend decided to have the baby, and she was totally fine, and is actually very intelligent. The test was wrong.
How many abortions happen in the country today because doctors over sell the dangers to the mother or because of false positive test results?
Point is: there is no morally just reason for ever deliberately killing a baby. However it is morally neutral (though very sad) if baby unintentionally dies as a result of ACTIVELY attempting to save mom’s life. But not by “saving mom’s life” when mom isn’t actively in danger at that moment in time.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
God, as a perfect being (unlike ourselves), cannot act against His own nature, which is the ground of the good. Now, let us take this scenario. For God to reveal something (publicly or privately) means it must be true (God cannot lie). If so, for God to reveal that abortion is okay means that abortion is good, which it is not. Consequently, God cannot reveal that abortion is okay as this would go against His nature, which is a contradiction and impossible, just like God couldn’t create married bachelors or dry water. This does not deny His omnipotence since a contradictory sentence remains contradictory in meaning even though it makes sense linguistically.
Of course, God could reveal that it was “okay” for an abortion to take place, if by “okay”, is meant forgivable and part of God’s greater plans for good.
R
rickpizzaro
Guest
According to scripture, God personally killed Egyptian children. This would have included infants, though it doesn’t say that pregnant women lost their babies (presumably because they were not yet “born”, and God said he wanted to kill firstborn children specifically):
Exodus Chapter 12:
29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.
P
phil19034
Guest
This has nothing to do with abortion. We are obligated to follow God’s rules, but God can do what He wants.
He knows what is best for us long term, we do not.
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
So you’re saying that since God can do what he wants, he *could *condone an abortion?
B
Bahman
Guest
Even we are allowed to do. Consider the example when the life of the mother is in danger!
R
Rau
Guest
Intentional abortion (murder) is not morally licit in any circumstance under the principles of Catholic morality. One may never do an evil deed so that good may come of it. The intentional killing of an innocent is always an evil deed.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Absolutely not. God can never go against his nature.
- Status