Do you think ALL abortion should be illegal?

[DL82]

Of course the Church teaches that abortion is always a moral evil. It is always the better choice to choose not to terminate a pregnancy.

Nonetheless, in some cases this amounts to the decision to accept martyrdom, to accept a death that has meaning only in the light of faith, i.e. that doesn’t even increase the chances of your unborn baby surviving. That is an extreme choice to make. Some have argued that reasonable self-defence permits abortion in some such cases, though I understand that the Church has never accepted such arguments.

Assuming you believe that the state should protect the rights of the unborn in normal circumstances, do you believe abortion should ALWAYS be illegal, even in these rare circumstances.

I have seen some campaigning materials from pro-life charities that suggest that “abortion should be rare” rather than calling for an all-out ban, and I think those arguments have a better chance of success in our secular society than calling for a total and absolute ban, though I’m not sure how I stand on the morality of such an argument.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

In cases of life and death, where the mother is likely to die from the abortion, I think it starts to resemble a self-defence situation. While morally we’re still called to never take an innocent life, legally, I wouldn’t want to prevent someone from killing a person in self-defence.

I hope this opinion doesn’t go against catholic teaching - not really sure.

 

[twb1621]

The court system has absolutely no right whatsoever declaring as legal the taking of any innocent life. They have way overstepped there bounds on this one, not that they haven’t before. In doing so, they have taken away the rights of the unborn to life just as if they had taken away the rights of the severely mentally ill who could not defend themselves but have a right to life.

 

[stbruno]

An ectopic pregnancy where this is a surgical emergency, because both mother and child will die is not considered an abortion because the object is not to kill the child.

 

[yellowbicycle]

An ectopic pregnancy where this is a surgical emergency, because both mother and child will die is not considered an abortion because the object is not to kill the child.

Isn’t this also true of cases where, say, the mother has cancer and requires immediate treatment and the treatment such as chemotherapy would also kill the baby?
Those situations are also not considered an abortion, too, right? Because, again, the object is NOT to kill the child, it is to treat the mother.

 

[stbruno]

Maybe we should examine the life of St.Gianna Molla. In 1961, Gianna was once again expecting. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, which would save her life and allow her to continue to have children; a complete hysterectomy, which would preserve her life, but take the unborn child’s life, and prevent further pregnancy; or removal of only the fibroma, with the potential of further complications. Wanting to preserve her child’s life, she opted for the removal of the fibroma.
After the operation, complications continued throughout her pregnancy. Gianna was quite clear about her wishes, expressing to her family, “This time it will be a difficult delivery, and they may have to save one or the other – I want them to save my baby.”
On April 21, 1962, Good Friday of that year, Gianna went to the hospital, where her fourth child, Gianna Emanuela, was successfully delivered via C–section However, Gianna continued to have severe pain, and died of septic peritonitis, eight days after the birth.

In our parish, about 18 yrs. ago, a mom discovered via a needle biopsy about 8 wks. before delivering a healthy baby boy that she had a breast tumor that was likely cancerous. She opted to wait until after the delivery to have her treatment…she died about 2 years later. Her son celebrates her life each day and the choice she makes.

As a parent, we make real sacrifices for our children. That’s what parents do. God did it for us, and we should follow his example and trust that His will be done.

 

[yellowbicycle]

Maybe we should examine the life of St.Gianna Molla. In 1961, Gianna was once again expecting. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, which would save her life and allow her to continue to have children; a complete hysterectomy, which would preserve her life, but take the unborn child’s life, and prevent further pregnancy; or removal of only the fibroma, with the potential of further complications. Wanting to preserve her child’s life, she opted for the removal of the fibroma.
After the operation, complications continued throughout her pregnancy. Gianna was quite clear about her wishes, expressing to her family, “This time it will be a difficult delivery, and they may have to save one or the other – I want them to save my baby.”
On April 21, 1962, Good Friday of that year, Gianna went to the hospital, where her fourth child, Gianna Emanuela, was successfully delivered via C–section However, Gianna continued to have severe pain, and died of septic peritonitis, eight days after the birth.

In our parish, about 18 yrs. ago, a mom discovered via a needle biopsy about 8 wks. before delivering a healthy baby boy that she had a breast tumor that was likely cancerous. She opted to wait until after the delivery to have her treatment…she died about 2 years later. Her son celebrates her life each day and the choice she makes.

As a parent, we make real sacrifices for our children. That’s what parents do. God did it for us, and we should follow his example and trust that His will be done.

YOu know what’s odd? Before I had children, the idea that I would refuse necessary medical treatment for myself to save my yet-to-be-born baby sounded, well, heroic, but certainly not anything that I would ever contemplate.
And now that I HAVE kids, I can’t think of how I would do anything BUT refuse medical treatment to save my yet-to-be-born baby.

 

[tobinatorstark]

abortion is wrong in all accounts. The baby should be saved at all costs.

 

[stbruno]

No one said the path would be easy for sainthood or parenthood. They both take real discipline and real sacrifices…but as Jesus tells us, the gate is narrow and many are called but few are chosen.

Keep praying!

For myself, I don’t think I am afraid of death…but it’s the suffering before hand that all of us are afraid of. That’s why I believe my late father used to pray daily to St.Joseph, patron of a happy death. Or Blessed Mother the rosary…when we say…now and at the hour of our death.

 

[Jennifer123]

Isn’t this also true of cases where, say, the mother has cancer and requires immediate treatment and the treatment such as chemotherapy would also kill the baby?
Those situations are also not considered an abortion, too, right? Because, again, the object is NOT to kill the child, it is to treat the mother.

It’s my understanding that if the treatment is not directly involved in killing the child, then it is permissible in order to save the life of the mother.

priestsforlife.org/questions/questionsandanswers.htm

Here’s a good Q&A from Priests for Life on the subject.

Plus we have to remember that abortion is a procedure not without side-effects which are dangerous to a women’s health, and is very exploitative. Subjecting women to an abortive procedure after traumatic experiences is wrong and doesn’t solve anything, it may seem to solve an initial problem and pain, but it leaves lasting scars physically, emotionally and spiritually that compund her experience possibly for the rest of her life.

 

[seekerz]

Before that question can be answered I think we need some basic definitions of abortion. Many people would consider this statement incredible, but the truth is there is much confusion as to what actually constitutes an abortion.

The most straightforward case is the situation where someone goes to an abortion clinic for the procedure. However, abortion is not a single act or procedure; there are several ways to take life in the womb. Also, not every measure that results in a baby’s death in the womb constitutes an abortion.

For example, the commonly quoted “health of the mother” scenario very rarely (if at all) results in direct abortion. If the mother is very sick, this commonly places the baby at risk as well; when such a baby is delivered early and dies as a result, it’s not necessarily an abortion (to my understanding, unless there was intent to kill the baby).

What makes it even more confusing is that the term abortion, is used in the medical sense in a very different way from the lay sense. In medical terms, death or delivery of a baby, from whatever cause (natural causes included) before it has the ability to live on it’s own, is called an abortion.

I have seen much confusion about the term abortion and it’s application to real life situations. For example, an distressed couple consenting to a D&C for life-threatening bleeding, while the baby seemed to be doomed but not yet dead: many would say this is perfectly permissible under Catholic teaching, but some would call it an abortion.

I’ve also heard of cases in South America where doctors are afraid to deliver women who have life-threatening infections of the womb in very early pregnancy for fear of being charged with abortion. To me, Church teaching clearly allows for the infection to be addressed, even though that unfortunately results in the baby’s death.

I believe there remains much ambiguity about such matters and the common trend of making blanket statements regarding medical situations we may never have personally faced, makes things even more difficult.

Taking innocent life is always wrong but not every act that results in death of an innocent is.

 

[mlldrl]

How would it sound if stated this way?

Do you think all *murder *should be illegal?

Kind of puts it in focus, huh?

M

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Maybe we should examine the life of St.Gianna Molla. In 1961, Gianna was once again expecting. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. …]

As a parent, we make real sacrifices for our children. That’s what parents do. God did it for us, and we should follow his example and trust that His will be done.

Clearly what she did was wonderful and heroic.

But isn’t there a difference between what we should do as Christians, and what the law should demand that people do?

Look at what St. Maximillian Kolbe did, giving his life to allow a father to live. That was wonderful and heroic. But the law shouldn’t require that single men have to give their lives to save a father when the situation arises.

Is it reasonable to draw a distinction between what catholic morality asks of us, and what the law demands of everyone? Would I be breaking some catholic rule by voting to make abortion legal where the life of the mother is at stake?

Edit: I think this issue is important because it savesthe pro-life cause from the reductio ad absurdum argument that pro-lifers want to force women die for their babies even in hopeless cases. I think it makes us look like extremists.

 

[Jennifer123]

For example, the commonly quoted “health of the mother” scenario very rarely (if at all) results in direct abortion. If the mother is very sick, this commonly places the baby at risk as well; when such a baby is delivered early and dies as a result, it’s not necessarily an abortion (to my understanding, unless there was intent to kill the baby)…

The “Health of the mother” provision in the legal procurement of abortion includes all “factors”, including physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age. Thanks to Doe v Bolton, a woman can legally procure an abortion up to the day of delivery if the pregnancy is causing “emotional problems”. How many abortions are performed due to “health of the mother” is hard to accurately number.

I have seen much confusion about the term abortion and it’s application to real life situations. For example, an distressed couple consenting to a D&C for life-threatening bleeding, while the baby seemed to be doomed but not yet dead: many would say this is perfectly permissible under Catholic teaching, but some would call it an abortion. .

There is no medical reason to receive a direct abortion:
priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm

"There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother…Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but** those are not abortions**. "

Please see the bolded part - those are not abortions. There is no confusion between a direct abortion and medical treatment. Please read the entire interview.

I believe there remains much ambiguity about such matters and the common trend of making blanket statements regarding medical situations we may never have personally faced, makes things even more difficult.

Taking innocent life is always wrong but not every act that results in death of an innocent is.

There isn’t ambiguity among those who are involved in the pro-life movement. It seems the only ambiguity exists among those for which ambiguity furthers their cause:

“And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.”

priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm

 

[Jennifer123]

Would I be breaking some catholic rule by voting to make abortion legal where the life of the mother is at stake?

.

Yes.

“And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes.

“And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.”

Thank you for posting that information, I guess the whole question of an exception for the life of the mother is purely hypothetical then?

I wonder, where catholic ethics aren’t considered, is the baby treated differently in those cases. For example, would a non-catholic doctor kill the baby as he was removing the uterus, for some practical reason, rather than removing it alive and allowing it a chance to live? Are there any health reasons one way or the other?

I guess I still think it makes the pro-life position sound more reasonable if we say that the law won’t force one person to die so that another can live, even if we believe that is the right thing to do.

As far as catholic teaching about which things should be illegal, do you have a reference? I’d like to see some straight answers on whether, for example, we’re required to support laws that would make birth control illegal for non-catholics, or make blasphemy illegal, etc. (Or, in this hypothetical case, a law to make it illegal to kill the fetus to save the life of the mother, if ever there were such a situation that arose).

 

[seekerz]

The “Health of the mother” provision in the legal procurement of abortion includes all “factors”, including physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age. Thanks to Doe v Bolton, a woman can legally procure an abortion up to the day of delivery if the pregnancy is causing “emotional problems”. How many abortions are performed due to “health of the mother” is hard to accurately number.

There is no medical reason to receive a direct abortion:
priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm

"There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother…Where the confusion arises is the so-called indirect abortion. Or those cases where both mother and child are dying because of a situation, there are really only three situations like this that I can think of and that’s ectopic pregnancy, cancer of the uterus, and perhaps trauma, or an accidental traumatic injury to the uterus. And if you don’t do anything then both mother and child will die. Now if you treat the mother for whatever needs to be treated, the uterus is bleeding, and you remove the uterus and the baby is still in there, and you do nothing to kill the baby, that is if you had a means an artificial incubator, some day we will have it, I’m sure, you could put that baby in there, so in no way do you directly attack the life of the baby. But you can foresee that that baby will lose its life, but it will lose its life anyhow but without directly attacking. Those are the three instances, very rare, very rare, but** those are not abortions**. "

Please see the bolded part - those are not abortions. There is no confusion between a direct abortion and medical treatment. Please read the entire interview.

There isn’t ambiguity among those who are involved in the pro-life movement. It seems the only ambiguity exists among those for which ambiguity furthers their cause:

“And you don’t need a law, you don’t need an exception because for ages that treatment of ectopic pregnancy, once the mother starts bleeding or has life-threatening complications, the treatment of cancer of the uterus, that has been always permissible without …having to legalize abortion. So the answer is simply no. There is no such thing as an abortion to save the life of the mother, sometimes early delivery, sometimes it is so early that the baby has a great risk of dying perhaps, but the baby is delivered, the baby is placed into intensive care, is given all the possible support, and may or may make it, but there is no such thing as an abortion to do that.”

priestsforlife.org/media/interviewisajiw.htm

Sorry, I misstated the first assertion in my post. I meant that there are few (if any) medical conditions treatment of which requires a direct abortion. Yes, the “medical necessity” idea is often misused but there are probably no genuine reasons for it to be used.

As for the rest, if you’ve participate in enough abortion discussions on this board you’ll realize that we have people with all sorts of ideas:

• some think an abortion is one particular procedure
  -some think delivery before independent life is possible (for health reasons), is abortion
  -some think use of the morning-after pill is always abortificent
  -some do not understand that the word abortion is used differently by doctors and may refer to a natural miscarriage…

I could go on, but the fact is, confusion exists among Catholics as to what is and is not permissible.

So yes, there is a need to define what is and is not acceptable in such situations.

Incidentally, my intention is to remove ambiguity. I have no cause that could be furthered by ignorance, actually the opposite is true.

 

[hasikelee]

Of course the Church teaches that abortion is always a moral evil. It is always the better choice to choose not to terminate a pregnancy.

Nonetheless, in some cases this amounts to the decision to accept martyrdom, to accept a death that has meaning only in the light of faith, i.e. that doesn’t even increase the chances of your unborn baby surviving. That is an extreme choice to make. Some have argued that reasonable self-defence permits abortion in some such cases, though I understand that the Church has never accepted such arguments.

Assuming you believe that the state should protect the rights of the unborn in normal circumstances, do you believe abortion should ALWAYS be illegal, even in these rare circumstances.

I have seen some campaigning materials from pro-life charities that suggest that “abortion should be rare” rather than calling for an all-out ban, and I think those arguments have a better chance of success in our secular society than calling for a total and absolute ban, though I’m not sure how I stand on the morality of such an argument.

So, what rare circumstances are you talking about here?

 

[maria_rose]

Maybe we should examine the life of St.Gianna Molla. In 1961, Gianna was once again expecting. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, which would save her life and allow her to continue to have children; a complete hysterectomy, which would preserve her life, but take the unborn child’s life, and prevent further pregnancy; or removal of only the fibroma, with the potential of further complications. Wanting to preserve her child’s life, she opted for the removal of the fibroma.
After the operation, complications continued throughout her pregnancy. Gianna was quite clear about her wishes, expressing to her family, “This time it will be a difficult delivery, and they may have to save one or the other – I want them to save my baby.”
On April 21, 1962, Good Friday of that year, Gianna went to the hospital, where her fourth child, Gianna Emanuela, was successfully delivered via C–section However, Gianna continued to have severe pain, and died of septic peritonitis, eight days after the birth.

In our parish, about 18 yrs. ago, a mom discovered via a needle biopsy about 8 wks. before delivering a healthy baby boy that she had a breast tumor that was likely cancerous. She opted to wait until after the delivery to have her treatment…she died about 2 years later. Her son celebrates her life each day and the choice she makes.

As a parent, we make real sacrifices for our children. That’s what parents do. God did it for us, and we should follow his example and trust that His will be done.

Thank you so much for posting this. Abortion must become illegal in ALL circumstances. There are so many ways to help a mother medically nowadays. There just is no excuse for the continued Holocaust.

 

[Jennifer123]

Thank you for posting that information, I guess the whole question of an exception for the life of the mother is purely hypothetical then?

I wonder, where catholic ethics aren’t considered, is the baby treated differently in those cases. For example, would a non-catholic doctor kill the baby as he was removing the uterus, for some practical reason, rather than removing it alive and allowing it a chance to live? Are there any health reasons one way or the other?

I guess I still think it makes the pro-life position sound more reasonable if we say that the law won’t force one person to die so that another can live, even if we believe that is the right thing to do.

As far as catholic teaching about which things should be illegal, do you have a reference? I’d like to see some straight answers on whether, for example, we’re required to support laws that would make birth control illegal for non-catholics, or make blasphemy illegal, etc. (Or, in this hypothetical case, a law to make it illegal to kill the fetus to save the life of the mother, if ever there were such a situation that arose).

You’re welcome.

I guess I still think it makes the pro-life position sound more reasonable if we say that the law won’t force one person to die so that another can live, even if we believe that is the right thing to do.

Why does it have to always be either/or? Why can’t we be concerned for the mother’s spiritual, emotional and physical health as well as respect the rights of a class of human beings who depend on us for protection?
I guess to my ears it doesn’t sound so unreasonable to insist that we need to recognize the inherent dignity of the human being regardless of status and that by working to eliminate abortion, we are working to save women’s lives, not exploit them or harm them any more than they already have been.