How do we respond to the argument that abortion is OK when it saves the Mother's life

[Pieman333272]

and the child would die anyway? If abortion saves one, isn’t it better than letting 2 die? Even though abortion has intent, doesn’t letting both the mother and child die by refusing one imply you have intent for them to die, if by neglect?

 

[catharina]

and the child would die anyway? If abortion saves one, isn’t it better than letting 2 die? Even though abortion has intent, doesn’t letting both the mother and child die by refusing one imply you have intent for them to die, if by neglect?

No. We have no right to play God, killing one to save another.

 

[Rence]

and the child would die anyway? If abortion saves one, isn’t it better than letting 2 die? Even though abortion has intent, doesn’t letting both the mother and child die by refusing one imply you have intent for them to die, if by neglect?

I would respond by telling the person who asks to seek the council of a priest. If the person you are debating with is either in danger of losing their health and pregnant, or knows someone who is, I can’t imagine saying something sufficient. But a priest is trained in these things and would be a better choice to answer those questions.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I would respond by telling the person who asks to seek the council of a priest. If the person you are debating with is either in danger of losing their health and pregnant, or knows someone who is, I can’t imagine saying something sufficient. But a priest is trained in these things and would be a better choice to answer those questions.

My own priest was very careful to explain that I did not need to take extraordinary measures to save my unborn child. That is, at the time there was a worry that to save my unborn child I might have to have a dangerous surgery. Dangerous for me and dangerous for her. (I did not have to face that decision, praise the Lord!) In that case, the Church does not require that the mother sacrifice her life.

There is no justification for direct abortion. You can, however, carry the baby as long as it is possible and deliver- hoping to save the child though premature. That is the answer for most such scenarios. You try to save both, and if you cannot neither can you be condemned for deliberately killing an innocent. You can do life-saving surgery, when necessary, on the mother even if you know that it will kill the child. If the intent is to save a life, it is allowed. If the intent is to kill, it is not. Direct abortion is not allowed. Most circumstances which a mother might face, do have real solutions acceptable to the Catholic mom. If the mother has a life-threatening health condition, she is allowed to treat it, even if it endangers her child.

 

[Zirconia]

So two must die instead of one. Certainly an anti-abortion position, but scarcely “pro-life.”

 

[catharina]

So two must die instead of one. Certainly an anti-abortion position, but scarcely “pro-life.”

Two might die instead of one. Yes.
We are not given the power of God
to decide death for another when we
are called to declare/defend life for both.
Either we depend on the power and
mercy of Almighty God or we don’t.

As in you can’t kill your
brother to save your sister.
It’s simply not allowed.

 

[Rence]

So two must die instead of one. Certainly an anti-abortion position, but scarcely “pro-life.”

Zirconia, I can totally understand where you’re coming from. But can you think of a situation in which this is the case? They are very rare.

 

[willofgods]

As others in this thread have pointed out, it is permissible to perform procedures in an attempt to save the mother, though death of the child may result; however, a procedure whose purpose is to kill the offspring, thereby saving the mother’s life is wrong. Something that should also be considered is the importance of the child’s soul. Here’s an article from the encyclopedia portion of Catholic Answers to flesh out (and to explain better than I ) this concept:

…]if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked…] The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us, provided four conditions are verified, namely:
(a) That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
(b) That the immediate effect be good in itself;
(c) That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it a procedure never allowed;
(d) That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child.
(a)The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life;
(b)the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good;
(c)no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother;
(d)the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life.
Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by anyone, even though he be not a Christian.

 

[RaphaelJ]

Catholic teachings state that abortion would only be allowed if it is neither the end nor the means but a necessary consequence. With this view, abortion itself is immoral. However, so would killing the fetus to save the mother. It might be acceptable if: an ectopic pregnancy (in order to cure it, the Fallopian tube must be removed which would cause the death of an embryo), or a surgery that MIGHT kill the fetus (but it’s aim is not to kill the fetus).

 

[puzzleannie]

and the child would die anyway? If abortion saves one, isn’t it better than letting 2 die? Even though abortion has intent, doesn’t letting both the mother and child die by refusing one imply you have intent for them to die, if by neglect?

I respond that it is never right to kill an innocent person directly, with the sole intent to kill an innocent person, even to save the life of another. The doctors in this situation have two patients and if they do not do all in their power to save both patients they are not worthy to practice their profession.

No where does the Catholic Church advocate “letting them both die.” If you think that please provide documentation. Yes if the treatment unintentionally results in the death of the infant, but was not intended, the treatment could still be pursued, but not any treatment whose direct and only intent is the murder of the child.

by the way there are very few circumstances where abortion is not more dangerous to the mother than either ceasarean or vaginal delivery. in fact I defy you to present an example other than removal of an ectopic or extra-uterine pregnancy. In those cases since abortion and murder is not the intent, the procedures may be acceptable.

So two must die instead of one. Certainly an anti-abortion position, but scarcely “pro-life.”

that is not the Catholic teaching how many times must we repeat, the doctors are to to their best to save both patients.

 

[seekerz]

by the way there are very few circumstances where abortion is not more dangerous to the mother than either ceasarean or vaginal delivery. in fact I defy you to present an example other than removal of an ectopic or extra-uterine pregnancy. In those cases since abortion and murder is not the intent, the procedures may be acceptable.

that is not the Catholic teaching how many times must we repeat, the doctors are to to their best to save both patients.

Puzzleannie, you are correct except in failing to note that in the pre-viable stage of pregancy, vaginal delivery or cesarean section also constitute abortion.

This is where the medical community diverges sharply from the lay view of abortion - when they hear “no abortion even in the case of mother’s illness” what some professionals are hearing is that they may not seek to deliver a pre-viable baby under any circumstances - when this is actually standard practice in highly complicated pregnancies (of which I have experienced one, with thankfully no decisions in the pre-viable stage).

The strategy of doing the best to save both patients is a good description of standard practice, but there are times when the baby is allowed as much time in the womb as is considered compatible with both lives and then delivered (deliberately) in the hopes that it may survive. In this case, delivery is the means of treating both patients (even though it medically and technically equates to an abortion) but the intended consequence is not death, but hopefully life. Of course, in the pre-viable stage, it is often clear before delivery that life, in or out of the womb, is either not likely or practically impossible (medically speaking) for the baby.

So while the way you express Church teaching is essentially correct, individual situations tend to be much less clear cut and people unfamiliar with Catholic teaching may simply not understand the reasoning or the practical applications. Once these complicated decisions were left to doctor and patient, but now people are advocating legislation which I don’t see as feasible (or safe) without a clear and widespread understanding on both sides of the terminology and the practical considerations involved.

 

[Suudy]

Puzzleannie, you are correct except in failing to note that in the pre-viable stage of pregancy, vaginal delivery or cesarean section also constitute abortion.

We should be clear here. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy through artificial means which leads to the death of the unborn child. Direct abortion is the problem. As per the CCC:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Delivery of a pre-viable child is not a direct abortion unless the death of the child is a willed end or means. This is made further clear:
2275"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."
Even if the death of the child is forseeable, if his or her death is not intended as either an end or means, it is permissible to terminate a pregnancy early.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but what the medical community may call an abortion is not the same as what the Church means when it speaks against abortion.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Abortion is NEVER ok. You can’t have an abortion to save the mother’s life. But you can save the mother’s life with the unintended result being the death of the child.

 

[Suudy]

Abortion is NEVER ok. You can’t have an abortion to save the mother’s life. But you can save the mother’s life with the unintended result being the death of the child.

I don’t know if you are responding to me, but this is the exact point I was making.

The point I was making was that the term ‘abortion’ is a generic term that indicates the intentional termination of a pregnancy in which the child dies. At least that appears to be how the medical community uses it. And insofar as that definition consistent with the Church’s use of the term, the explicit prohibition is on direct abortion. Indirect abortion, where the “unintended result being the death of the child” is permissible.

The problem seems to be in how terms are defined and used. It appears that the medical community uses the term to mean any intentional termination of a pregnancy that leads to the death of the child, regardless of whether was a willed end or means. So the pro-“choice” crowd gets all in a tizzy over this because they ignore are unaware of the qualifier (“direct”).

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I don’t know if you are responding to me, but this is the exact point I was making.

The point I was making was that the term ‘abortion’ is a generic term that indicates the intentional termination of a pregnancy in which the child dies. At least that appears to be how the medical community uses it. And insofar as that definition consistent with the Church’s use of the term, the explicit prohibition is on direct abortion. Indirect abortion, where the “unintended result being the death of the child” is permissible.

The problem seems to be in how terms are defined and used. It appears that the medical community uses the term to mean any intentional termination of a pregnancy that leads to the death of the child, regardless of whether was a willed end or means. So the pro-“choice” crowd gets all in a tizzy over this because they ignore are unaware of the qualifier (“direct”).

No, I was responding in general.

 

[seekerz]

We should be clear here. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy through artificial means which leads to the death of the unborn child. Direct abortion is the problem. As per the CCC:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
Delivery of a pre-viable child is not a direct abortion unless the death of the child is a willed end or means. This is made further clear:
2275"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."
Even if the death of the child is forseeable, if his or her death is not intended as either an end or means, it is permissible to terminate a pregnancy early.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but what the medical community may call an abortion is not the same as what the Church means when it speaks against abortion.

Per the medical definition of abortion, any death of the fetus before viability is termed abortion (even natural miscarriage) and while I understand what you are saying and what the Church’s stand is, the point I was making is that in such discussions we need to be clear what we mean by the term abortion. I remember some time ago when a congresswoman tearfully recounted the story of her miscarriage, which she referred to as an abortion, some on this board criticized her for deliberately clouding the issue, but I do believe that there is considerable genuine confusion over terminology. At any rate, these issues need to be clarified every time we discuss them and my personal preference (and this is strictly just me) is for people to describe the situations they are referring to, rather than simply saying “abortion, this - abortion, that”.

 

[Wardog]

Two might die instead of one. Yes.
We are not given the power of God
to decide death for another when we
are called to declare/defend life for both.
Either we depend on the power and
mercy of Almighty God or we don’t.

As in you can’t kill your
brother to save your sister.
It’s simply not allowed.

So what do you say to soldiers and Marines in combat?

 

[catharina]

So what do you say to soldiers and Marines in combat?

Don’t kill each other.

Other rules apply to killing in combat.
It’s called the “just war theory.”

 

[razredge]

If a life can be saved by abortion (such as an ectopic pregnancy) where normally both mother and child could die, then it is better to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

[catharina]

If a life can be saved by abortion (such as an ectopic pregnancy) where normally both mother and child could die, then it is better to choose the lesser of two evils.

This procedure, removal of a ruptured tube, saves the
life of the mother and produces an INDIRECT ABORTION.
Because of the nature of the procedure, the baby dies. The abortion
is not willed as an abortion. The surgery is carried out
to prevent the death of the mother - NOT to destroy a baby.