Doctors---is it safer to abort the child or to induce birth?

[aborodki]

Hello,

Some doctors have told me that in an instance where the life of the mother is at stake, it is safer to induce pregnancy than to actually abort the child. Is this true? Also, what is the Catholic Church’s stance on this issue?

 

[Bluegoat]

Hello,

Some doctors have told me that in an instance where the life of the mother is at stake, it is safer to induce pregnancy than to actually abort the child. Is this true? Also, what is the Catholic Church’s stance on this issue?

I assume you mean induce labour.

The church’s stance would be that abortion is immoral, in the sense of trying to kill the baby before removing the remains from the uterus.

I don’t believe the Church has any view on what is safer - it’s irrelevant.

But yes, in some circumstances it could be safer for the mom just to induce. But I am not sure about the point of the question - it’s so wide open as to be very difficult to answer. At what point in the pregnancy? For what reason? In some cases an “induction” is what is considered an abortion for that stage of pregnancy.

 

[SMHW]

Hello,

Some doctors have told me that in an instance where the life of the mother is at stake, it is safer to induce pregnancy than to actually abort the child. Is this true? Also, what is the Catholic Church’s stance on this issue?

I’m no doctor but I would think that normal labor and delivery would generally be safer for the woman than a partial birth abortion where the baby was in the breech position.

 

[DebChris]

I am not a doctor. I am a woman who, for reasons that will remain confidential as for as this thread goes, whose labor was induced. My obstetrician was well known for his willingness to do whatever it takes to help a difficult pregnancy, to help the woman give birth.

If possible, a breech will be turned. This takes special skill on the part of the physician as he works to save both mother and child.

adorodki–It is the Church’s position that every reasonable effort should be made to save both mother and child. What the Church opposes is the intentional killing (aborticide) of the child.

 

[aborodki]

I assume you mean induce labour.

The church’s stance would be that abortion is immoral, in the sense of trying to kill the baby before removing the remains from the uterus.

I don’t believe the Church has any view on what is safer - it’s irrelevant.

But yes, in some circumstances it could be safer for the mom just to induce. But I am not sure about the point of the question - it’s so wide open as to be very difficult to answer. At what point in the pregnancy? For what reason? In some cases an “induction” is what is considered an abortion for that stage of pregnancy.

See, I’m not a doctor so I didn’t even think of anything you brought up. What I was thinking off, and maybe this can help, is when Tiller was shot, there was a lot of coverage about late term abortions. I was watching Fox News when Bill O’Reilly said that a lot of doctors wrote into the program and said that when the life of the mother is at stake, it is safer to deliver the child than to abort it. So, assuming, there are complications in a late-term pregnancy, is it safer to deliver a child than to abort it? Also, what is the Catholic teaching in terms of complications in the pregnancy? Can a child be aborted if the life of the mother is at stake?
Thanks for all your comments. I always appreciate them.

 

[aborodki]

I’m no doctor but I would think that normal labor and delivery would generally be safer for the woman than a partial birth abortion where the baby was in the breech position.

Breech? :hypno:

 

[SMHW]

Breech? :hypno:

Babies are normally born head first. Occasionally one positioned bottom/feet first. This can be dangerous for both mother and child because neither mother nor baby is designed to fit that way. There are birthing techniques by which a doctor or midwife can turn a baby around prior to the baby entering the birth canal.

But from what I understand (and I am no expert, believe me; hopefully someone will correct me where I’m wrong), partial birth abortions are often (usually?) forced breech deliveries because a baby is not legally considered to be born alive until the head is out.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Wow! How messed up is that? I was feetfirst and my mom had to have a special procdure so I could be born. I’ts insane to think they could have legally killed me…

 

[JReducation]

See, I’m not a doctor so I didn’t even think of anything you brought up. What I was thinking off, and maybe this can help, is when Tiller was shot, there was a lot of coverage about late term abortions. I was watching Fox News when Bill O’Reilly said that a lot of doctors wrote into the program and said that when the life of the mother is at stake, it is safer to deliver the child than to abort it.

To induce labor at a stage when the infant is viable, is not a sin. It is not an attack on the innocent. To induce labor and to kill the newborn, is murder.

To induce labor at a stage when the infant is not viable, is also murder. It is an attack on the infanct as if it were a virus or bacteria that has to be eliminated.

So, assuming, there are complications in a late-term pregnancy, is it safer to deliver a child than to abort it?

There is no choice here. NONE, ZERO, NADA, NON. You cannot induce a labor to save the mother, if the child is not viable. In other words, if you know that the child is going to die when the mother delivers, you may not induce. You must make every attempt to save both lives. If the child dies or the mother dies or both die in the attempt, let it be from natural causes, not because the doctor and the parent decided to kill the baby or put the baby’s life at risk.

Also, what is the Catholic teaching in terms of complications in the pregnancy? Can a child be aborted if the life of the mother is at stake?
Thanks for all your comments. I always appreciate them.

The Catholic Church bases its answers on natural philosophy. Natural philosophy says that no human being has the right to deny another human being the right to be born. Why not? Because no human being is the property of another human being. Therefore, if the child in the womb is not your property, you cannot dispose of it at your leisure. Such an act is a grave sin against the dignity of man. Man is no one’s property.

Even in a late term complication, you may not treat the unborn child as if he were a piece of property that you can destroy. He does not belong to the mother or the doctor. He is his own person.

From this the Church defends the dignity of every human being as sons and daughers of God. Therefore, no human being can be treated as property by another human being. Taking an innocent human life is a crime and a grave sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DebChris]

The way I was taught the Church’s position is “the child cannot live without the mother, but the mother can live without the child.” Therapeutic abortions have always been acceptable. In this case, the death of neither mother nor child is the goal although the death of the child may occur. Every reasonable effort is made to save both.
In a tubal pregnancy, for instance, the life of both mother and child is endangered. Taking the child spares the life of the mother who may have another child at a later time.
I like the term, no longer in the dictionary, that describes what is not acceptable. Aborticdie is the intentional destruction of the fetus within the womb.
During the last couple of decades, the age of viability has decreased from 35 weeks gestation to 26 weeks due to medical advances.

 

[JReducation]

The way I was taught the Church’s position is “the child cannot live without the mother, but the mother can live without the child.” Therapeutic abortions have always been acceptable. In this case, the death of neither mother nor child is the goal although the death of the child may occur. Every reasonable effort is made to save both.
In a tubal pregnancy, for instance, the life of both mother and child is endangered. Taking the child spares the life of the mother who may have another child at a later time.
I like the term, no longer in the dictionary, that describes what is not acceptable. Aborticdie is the intentional destruction of the fetus within the womb.
During the last couple of decades, the age of viability has decreased from 35 weeks gestation to 26 weeks due to medical advances.

But the OP is talking about inducing labor. If you can induce labor, then it’s not a tubal pregnancy.

The age of viability has increased to 26 weeks. This is one of those negative coralleries in statistics. As the numbers go down, the positives go up, meaning that the child has a greater chance of survival.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DebChris]

But the OP is talking about inducing labor. If you can induce labor, then it’s not a tubal pregnancy.

The age of viability has increased to 26 weeks. This is one of those negative coralleries in statistics. As the numbers go down, the positives go up, meaning that the child has a greater chance of survival.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think you meant decreased to 26 weeks, which is an improvement from the 35 weeks of 30 years ago. My youngest nephew was born at 26 weeks. A generation ago, he would not have survived.

I wanted to get to the medical definition of abortion, taken from Taber’s Medical Dictionary.
This is important as we want to differentiate between intent and consequences.
abortion is “the spontaneous or induced termination of pregnancy before the fetus reaches a viable age.” The legal definition of *viability *varies by state from 20 to 24 weeks.
elective a. “may be recommended when the mother’s mental or physical state would be endangered by continuation of the pregnancy or when the fetus has a condition incompatible with life.” Mental grounds are not sufficient according to Church teaching.
habitual a" Three or more consecutive spontaneous abortions."
imminent a. “Impending abortion characterized by bleeding and colicky pains that increase.”
induced a. “the intentional termination of a pregnancy…”
inevitable a. “An abortion that cannot be halted.”
infected a" Abortion accompanied by infection of retained material with resulting febrile reaction." Febrile, for those unfamiliar with medical terminology is a fever.
missed a." Abortion in which the fetus has died before completion of the 20th week of gestation but the products of conception are retained in the uterus for 8 weeks or longer."
partial birth a. “The cranial contents of the fetus are extracted prior to the removal of the fetus from the uterus” Medically referred to as “dilation and extraction” is contrary to Catholic teaching.
septic a. “Abortion in which there is an infection of the products of conception.”
spontaneous a. “Abortion occurring without apparent cause.” synonymous with a miscarriage.
therapeutic a." Abortion performed when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s mental or physical health or where the fetus has a known condition incompatible with life."
Again, this is acceptable according to Church teachings when both the life of the mother and child are endangered. The intent is saving the mother’s life. The consequence is the child’s death. Every reasonable effort needs to be made to save both. Recommended reading: The Philosophy of Life
threatened a “The signs and symptons of possible loss of the fetus.”
tubal a. "A spontaneous abortion in which the fetus has been expelled through the distal end of the uterine tube.

In the 1956 edition of Webster’s Dictionary, you will find the word aborticide. This is what was legalized by Roe v. Wade and this is what we are fighting.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Hmm… interesting thread.

On a personal note… my MIL was told that she should abort her baby (my husband) at the risk of dying during childbirth. Her doctor literally yelled at her when she refused - “YOU ARE COMMITTING SUICIDE HERE!” She was bedridden in the hospital for the last few months of her pregnancy. Unable to tolerate ANY anesthesia, she delivered him frank breech (butt first), tore completely, yet lived (actually, she’s 75 years old now - we’re headed to her house for dinner tonight )…

Had she listened to her doctor’s advice to KILL her child, I wouldn’t have my husband.

So… even doctors aren’t ALWAYS right.