Defending Church teaching on abortion

[Anonymous_1]

How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die, or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?

 

[JimG]

You’ll have to give a much more specific circumstance.
I presume you’re not talking about removing a fallopian tube in a case of ectopic pregnancy, because that is not considered abortion.

But the short answer is, the direct killing of an unborn child is never licit.

Nevertheless, from a public policy point of view, I would turn the question around: Would your pro-abortion questioner agree to limit abortiion, as a matter of public policy, to only those cases in which the mother would certainly die if the child were carried to term?

 

[Anonymous_1]

why isnt that consdered abortion? the egg has been fertilized it is a growing embryo. the onyl difference is that ithas implanted in the wall of the fillopian tube rather than the uteran wall…

but besides that instance…
there are certain situations where if a mother delivers it jeapordizes her life and sometimes even hers and the childs…

becasue abortion is intrinsically evil it is never justified, so how would you defend against the Catholic position? I am asking in case i ever find myself in this situation…

 

[BillP]

JimG:

Nevertheless, from a public policy point of view, I would turn the question around: Would your pro-abortion questioner agree to limit abortiion, as a matter of public policy, to only those cases in which the mother would certainly die if the child were carried to term?

Isn’t it intellectually dishonest to even ask the question when you have no intention of “negotiating” in good faith? That is, as Catholic we can’t approve of abortion even to save the life of the mother? How does that position change if the “pro-abortion questioner” so agrees?

Or are you attempting to set up a “gotcha” kind of thing where the questioner agrees to limit abortion to cases where:

JimG:

the mother would certainly die if the child were carried to term?

then you point out that we can never be certain that the mother would die?

 

[jrabs]

Anonymous_1:

How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die, or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?

Maybe you could read up on St. Gianna Molla and she may help provide some ideas. She was faced with this problem and chose the Godly path and has been rewarded greatly for it. She is an amazing role model for families.
saintgianna.org/

 

[BillP]

Anonymous_1:

becasue abortion is intrinsically evil it is never justified, so how would you defend against the Catholic position? I am asking in case i ever find myself in this situation…

No defense is required (or frankly possible), God (though the Catholic Church ) has spoken. If a woman gets pregnant and her life is in danger she has no alternative, tough noogies. Although she could always “offer it up”. And make sure shes in a state of grace.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Anonymous_1:

How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die, or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?

Abortion is the killing of a human life.

So is putting someone in the path of a bullet.

So say that a mother carrying her baby were shot at. Would anyone say that the woman has a right to use her baby as a shield to block the bullet?

 

[JimG]

BillP:

Isn’t it intellectually dishonest to even ask the question when you have no intention of “negotiating” in good faith? That is, as Catholic we can’t approve of abortion even to save the life of the mother? How does that position change if the “pro-abortion questioner” so agrees?

But I would ask that question in good faith. The fact is, that abortions performed to save the life of the mother are and have been an infinitesimal part of the actual number of abortions performed in this country. I think it would be licit for a Catholic to support a law limiting abortions to just those cases, since such a law would right now save a million lives each year.

 

[JimG]

With respect to the ectopic pregnancy:

Inserting an instrument into the tube to directly kill the growing embryo would be a direct abortion.

Removing the entire fallopian tube is not a direct abortion. You do not attack the embryo directly nor intend to kill it.

 

[Anonymous_1]

Interesting…i havea question:
if two people are walking down the road and a bullet is fired at the first…do we have an obligation to jump in front of the bullet???

anyway, it is important to have a defense, I dont like just saying because the Church says so…I want to know the reasoning behind it. I know my peers in my ethics class will not accept authoritarian reasoning…

there has got to be a good defense for this position…
Another question…someone says “OK so we legalize abortion, so instead they will goto dirty illegal underground abortion mills where they are endangered.” what do you say to this?

 

[BillP]

JimG:

With respect to the ectopic pregnancy:

Inserting an instrument into the tube to directly kill the growing embryo would be a direct abortion.

Removing the entire fallopian tube is not a direct abortion. You do not attack the embryo directly nor intend to kill it.

So performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman would be permitted?

 

[jrabs]

BillP:

So performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman would be permitted?

Jim,
I’ve gotta agree with Bill here. Your logic seems flawed.

 

[BillP]

Anonymous_1:

Interesting…i havea question:
if two people are walking down the road and a bullet is fired at the first…do we have an obligation to jump in front of the bullet???

No.There is a difference between acting and not acting. We are enjoined from acting evilly. We cannot pull the other person in front of us to take the bullet. But we are free to stand still and let the bullet hit whomever it is aimed at. Although in your example if we had time to “jump in front” we would certainly have time to push him out of the way.

Anonymous_1:

it is important to have a defense, I dont like just saying because the Church says so…I want to know the reasoning behind it. I know my peers in my ethics class will not accept authoritarian reasoning…

The problem is that all of the “reasoning behind it” flows from the Church’s posiiton as the sole earthly definer, arbiter and recepticle of God’s will. The reasoning is only comnpelling to those who have made the a priori assumption that the Churdch speaks for God.

Anonymous_1:

there has got to be a good defense for this position…

Nope. I’m afraid not. In fact I think a lot of trouble is caused when people try to make rational reasoning to justify basically non-rational things (like why God expects/requires certain things). The rational explanation inevitably fails to convince because, in essence, it isn’t true. The real answer is because God says so, or, if you prefer, because the Catholic Church says God says so. This results in people who are unconvinced by the rational “explanantion” saying “that’s why the Church says that? That’s not correct. The Church must be wrong.”

Anonymous_1:

Another question…someone says “OK so we legalize abortion, so instead they will goto dirty illegal underground abortion mills where they are endangered.” what do you say to this?

Virtually all laws are broken by people with dire consequences, why should abvoriton be any different.

 

[Philthy]

Anonymous_1:

How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die,

Only abortion is certain to kill, the life of the child is equal to that of the mother, therefore the certain knowledge that the abortion will kill the child outweighs the possible death of the mother. That was hard…

Anonymous_1:

or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?

Again, the defence is that it is never “certain” that the mother would die from a pregnancy - only abortion is a certain death. In fact, its just a pretty word for “killing an unborn baby”.
Given that the life of every human derives its value from its author, God, all human life is of equal value - unless God chooses otherwise. Any action which only has the potential of killing is better than an action which will absolutely kill.

With all due respect, this question is largely a waste of time. How many pregnancies put women at a substantial risk of death? I smell a diversion…

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

In an ectopic pregnancy there is 100% certainty that the baby will not survive. The mother also cannot survive it. As of now, the technology does not exist to take the embryo from the fallopian tube and implant it in the uterus. So the choices are that we can either stand by and watch two lives end, or save one life. The removal of the fallopian tube is not done to kill the baby. There is no way to save the baby; the only one that CAN be saved is the mother. In this circumstance it is not abortion because the intent is not to kill the baby.

The difference between a hysterectomy and the surgery to save the mother’s life is profound. What is the point of a hysterectomy? To avoid becomming pregnant. Hysterectomies are condemned by the Church…I don’t see the conection with an eptopic pregnancy.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[BillP]

Rand Al'Thor:

The difference between a hysterectomy and the surgery to save the mother’s life is profound. What is the point of a hysterectomy? To avoid becomming pregnant. Hysterectomies are condemned by the Church…I don’t see the conection with an eptopic pregnancy.

In Christ,
Rand

You do realize that a hysterectomy isn’t generally done for purposes of sterilization don’t you? See here:

4woman.gov/faq/hysterectomy.htm

By the way, hysterectomies aren’t condemned by the Church.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

BillP:

You do realize that a hysterectomy isn’t generally done for purposes of sterilization don’t you? See here:

4woman.gov/faq/hysterectomy.htm

By the way, hysterectomies aren’t condemned by the Church.

Peace be with you!

Ok, I was partially wrong. But the Church does condemn hysterectomies done for the purpose of sterilization.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[1ke]

Anonymous_1:

How do you defend the pro-life cause in this extreme circumstance.

If the Mother will certainly die, or if the Mother and child both if she delivers the child is she justified in having an abortion to save her own life?

How do you defend against this type of situation?

The goal is always to save both.

An abortion is not the cure for any disease. It is the killing of a child.

If a woman has a health condition that makes it necessary to deliver the child (vaginally or via cesarian) to treat her condition and the child does not survive that is not an abortion. It is a doctor’s job to try to save both, doing all he can for each patient. Modern medicine makes it possible for babies to be delivered at younger ages and survive. It is a shame that they cannot all be saved.

 

[1ke]

Anonymous_1:

why isnt that consdered abortion? the egg has been fertilized it is a growing embryo. the onyl difference is that ithas implanted in the wall of the fillopian tube rather than the uteran wall…

The tube is removed, and the baby dies as a consequence not as the intended act. The only reason the baby dies is because at this present time the doctor lacks the technology to save it.

A woman may legitimately be treated for a disease-- including cancer, etc-- and the unintended consequence might be the death of the child. But the child is never directly killed and the hope is always that the doctor can save both.

Anonymous_1:

but besides that instance…
there are certain situations where if a mother delivers it jeapordizes her life and sometimes even hers and the childs…

There is always this mysterious “certain situations” which no one can ever actually name. The fact is, there is never a need for an abortion to save a mother. There may be a need for a cesarian section to deliver the baby.

Anonymous_1:

becasue abortion is intrinsically evil it is never justified, so how would you defend against the Catholic position? I am asking in case i ever find myself in this situation…

The Church teaches that abortion is always wrong because it is always wrong to kill a person. Abortion kills a person.

 

[1ke]

Anonymous_1:

Interesting…i havea question:
if two people are walking down the road and a bullet is fired at the first…do we have an obligation to jump in front of the bullet???

We are not obligated to put ourselves in front of the bullet. But, we may not pull the other person in front of us to shield ourselves form the bullet.

Anonymous_1:

anyway, it is important to have a defense, I dont like just saying because the Church says so…I want to know the reasoning behind it. I know my peers in my ethics class will not accept authoritarian reasoning…

Please pick up the wonderful book Pro Choice Answers To Pro Choice Arguments by Randy Alcorn. You need to read it again and again, it does have the answers to the questions you are asking, and all very intelligently presented.

Anonymous_1:

Another question…someone says “OK so we legalize abortion, so instead they will goto dirty illegal underground abortion mills where they are endangered.” what do you say to this?

Well, first, this is a complete fallacy and lie manufactured by abortion doctors to lobby for legal abortion.

Women did die from abortions (and many other thing) in the early 20th century, and that had almost completely been elminated with the advent of penicillin. The deaths were from infections. By the mid-1960s there were literally almost no deaths from abortions.

Bernard Nathanson, a former abortion doctor, now freely admits making up the numbers, basically pulling them out of thin air. The CDC records contradict these sensational numbers of “thousands” of women dieing. He made them up!

The doctors doing abortions before they were legal are the same doctors who kept doing them after they were legal. The idea of the “back alley butcher” is another fabrication of Nathanson and his co-conspirators to have abortion legalized.

Women die from legal abortions in this country.