I think I found a situation where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life

[bilop]

I don’t think the unborn child’s salvation is at risk. If the mother chose to have the abortion, yes, her salvation is certainly at risk and she could well die during that or any other surgery, but the unborn kid didn’t choose to do anything either way. If the father/husband decided while she was incapacitated, I don’t believe she would be culpable either. You have to know and choose to commit a mortal sin, and that baby can’t make any kind of choices.

We don’t really know what happens to infants born or unborn who die prior to baptism, but we trust in God’s mercy.

Well, since we **don’t know **what happens to infants that die prior to baptism, then by definiton their salvation is at risk. We’re pretty sure they don’t suffer, but they may be denied the beatific vision (i.e. the limbo hypothesis).

On the contrary, we know that baptized infants **go immediately to Heaven **after death.

That’s the only point I was making.

God Bless

 

[budgie2]

In my last pregnancy, I had severe preeclampsia that came on all of the sudden. They had to do an emergency c-section. Fortunately, I was relatively far along (35 weeks) and both baby and I are fine. The baby is now 5 months old. It was the scariest experience of my life, though.

After that happened to me I started researching preeclampsia online. I found a couple of people on message boards who had had severe preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome had to have abortions to save their lives. I know that the Church permits procedures to save a pregnant woman’s life that may indirectly result in the death of the child. But both inducing labor and doing a c-section would have been too dangerous to these women in their condition. They said the only option was direct abortion. The babies were also too young to survive outside the womb. The women desperately wanted their babies and said the abortion was the worst experience of their life, but they were told they would die otherwise.

I’ve always been very pro-life, and I always thought that situations where abortion is the only option to save the mother’s life didn’t exist. But now I’m not so sure. It sure does sound like it was the only option. I’m not a doctor, but I would think doctors know better than I do.

Can anyone shed some light on this?? Anyone have a medical background? If a women has severe preeclampsia or HELLP and the baby has to come out right away, are there any other options than inducing labor, c-section, or abortion? I can’t think of any. The women were told their platelets were too low for a c-section and labor would be too dangerous since their blood pressure was too high. What else could they do? Should a good Catholic woman just die? I have a hard time believing the church teaches that. Could it be the church is wrong about abortion in this one instance?

Again I’m not a medical expert but I don’t know why abortion would be more safe than c-section or labour as surely abortion also causes body trauma. I would opt for c-section in that position and it’s probably only because abortions are legal and common that the medical practioner would recommend abortion. You don’t always know who’s looking after you and I’ve got two friends who have had abortions and both work for the health service here, one in children’s intensive care (entirely legally) and she’s also pro-euthanasia and the other works in mental health. I wouldn’t believe a word and as a mother it’s my duty to defend my babys’ rights as here in Britain an unborn child does not have any rights in British law right up till full term.

 

[kage_ar]

See what gets me about the just let the woman die argument is not only is it cruel…and thoughtless and pointless…I am willing to be that 99% of the prolifers that preach that nonsence…well if they or someone close to them was ever in that situation where they had to make a life or death decision…well lets just say they suddenly might not be so willing to die. It is easier to condemn some woman you donlt know to die. But when it;s you or your wife or your sister or even just a friend in that situation…well lets just say it;s different.

By virtue of baptism, we are Christians. As Christians we are called to love other people as Christ loved, to lay down our life for others.

I would die for another, I would die for my child or for a stranger. I do not know a Christian who would NOT die to save a child.

 

[HouseArrest]

The difference is that the two acts are different. Giving painkiller to a person is not an act which in and of itself kills. It is actually an act of mercy.

However, abortion is in and of itself an act which kills; the *intent *of the action is killing the unborn child.

When you aunt gave the child the amount of painkiller he needed to alleviate his pain, she did so. The fact that the child died was what you might call a side-effect of the action she took. Had she given him more painkiller than he needed, in order that he would die,

that would have been killing him.

Your aunt’s action falls under the principle of double-effect. it is wonderful that she had a good priest who understood that.

As a relative of many nurses, I hear it is quite common for someone to die of a morphine overdose, in the end, after a long illness such as cancer.

 

[Calliso]

Your argument is all emotional and not based in fact. Please tell me a situation in which a baby would need to be aborted.

I gave some examples in a earlier post. And yes I admit so far my argument has been mainly based in emotion. But what is wrong with that? And isn;t much of the prolife arguments basically based in emotion?

But I would also say another argument/arguments for saving the mother is that the mothers death wouldn;t just affect her. Think about it especially if she has kids. If she dies then there is just the father assuming he is even still around. Not to mention you also have to consider her parents siblings and even friends here. So if you don;t give the mother the choice of a potentially life saving abortion and she dies because of it…your not just hurting the mother. You are also hurting everyone that knows that person.

 

[Calliso]

Furthermore, no one said to “just let the woman die.” Every thing possible to provide for the mother should be done. It is a fallacy to argue “it’s the baby or the mother.” It does not happen like that and is an argument used by those to justify abortion.

The thing is sometimes it is the baby or the mother. Though from what research I have done over time it has been a long time since I have though that;s why I am researching more now It is all too often a case of the baby isn;t going to make it anyway. And your right I apologizing for saying just let the mother die like that is the argument of the prolife movement. I just get rather angry about this particular subject. And I think a mother potentially laying on her death bed should have a choice to have an abortion if that is what will most likely save her life.

 

[Calliso]

Wow…so your not sure if a situation exists but your still promoting abortion. Good luck with your research. But take a moment to exam your motives. Your are seeking reasons to justify killing a baby. Are you hoping to find examples that would warrant an abortion?

But are you so sure the situation doesn;t exist? And I already know of at least a couple predelivery reasons like etopic. But I still need to do some research on reasons why it could become necessary during the actual delivery. My motives are if I am right to show that sometimes to save the mothers life a abortion may be necessary.

 

[fix]

But are you so sure the situation doesn;t exist?

It does not exist because when you evaluate these things you look to the moral aspect as well as the medical. The moral aspect says you may never, ever, intend to kill an innocent person no matter any so-called perceived higher good. It is an absolute that cannot be violated. This is hard for our modern, relativistic, ears to comprehend.

If the fate of the whole world depended on killing an innocent baby the answer is still it may not be done.

 

[Calliso]

It does not exist because when you evaluate these things you look to the moral aspect as well as the medical. The moral aspect says you may never, ever, intend to kill an innocent person no matter any so-called perceived higher good. It is an absolute that cannot be violated. This is hard for our modern, relativistic, ears to comprehend.

If the fate of the whole world depended on killing an innocent baby the answer is still it may not be done.

So if basically letting the world end wouldn;t be as bad as killing one baby? So in other words killing billions of people isn;t as bad as killing one?

 

[bilop]

So if basically letting the world end wouldn;t be as bad as killing one baby? So in other words killing billions of people isn;t as bad as killing one?

How about this example. A madman has a nuclear bomb and says he will detonate it in a major city, killing millions, unless you murder your child (if you don’t have a child, make it your wife/husband or mother/father).

Do you do it? Is it moral?

Likewise, is it moral for a mother to kill her 5 year old to get an organ for a life saving transplant?

God Bless

 

[Drawmack]

It does not exist because when you evaluate these things you look to the moral aspect as well as the medical. The moral aspect says you may never, ever, intend to kill an innocent person no matter any so-called perceived higher good. It is an absolute that cannot be violated. This is hard for our modern, relativistic, ears to comprehend.

If the fate of the whole world depended on killing an innocent baby the answer is still it may not be done.

I would like you to either state that your last sentence it your own personal belief, or I would like you to point me to conclusive Church doctrine which states this. This is a matter of the utmost importance because if the Catholic Church actually teaches that then I must leave the Church.

 

[bilop]

I would like you to either state that your last sentence it your own personal belief, or I would like you to point me to conclusive Church doctrine which states this. This is a matter of the utmost importance because if the Catholic Church actually teaches that then I must leave the Church.

Are you serious?

 

[kage_ar]

I would like you to either state that your last sentence it your own personal belief, or I would like you to point me to conclusive Church doctrine which states this. This is a matter of the utmost importance because if the Catholic Church actually teaches that then I must leave the Church.

Both Scripture “You shall not kill” and the Catechism are clear:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2258.htm
**2258 **“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

[2268](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2268.htm’) The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

 

[kage_ar]

Please stop pontificating on Catholic teachings that are not Catholic teachings. While abortion is never justified the Church teaches that there may be some, though very rare, cases where the death penalty is justified. So therefore, the Church does not teach that murder is never justified.

Your sentiment is correct, but your words are wrong.

The death penalty is not murder.

 

[RedSoxWife]

I donlt think Jesus would ever sanction murder…but then the question is would he consider terminating a pregnancy to save a mother’s life murder? Assuming we are talking about a case where both can not be saved? Or a case of the baby will not live no matter what but the mother;s only chance is terminating the pregnancy? But I donlt know what Jesus would want a woman to do in that situation.

“Terminating a pregnancy” is just a nicer sounding way of saying that you’re murdering a baby (and even then the nicer way of saying it is still pretty disgusting).

The problem I have is that you can’t really be certain that neither one of them will live, can you? People miraculously pull threw situations where doctor’s were certain that they were going to die. We on earth, even doctor’s, aren’t in a position to make those decisions.

If I were put in that awful position I would gather all the courage that I have and place my faith in God’s plan for my life and for the child. He’s the one who’s in control and I would hope that I would have the will to say that His will, not mine, be done.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The thing is sometimes it is the baby or the mother. Though from what research I have done over time it has been a long time since I have though that;s why I am researching more now It is all too often a case of the baby isn;t going to make it anyway. And your right I apologizing for saying just let the mother die like that is the argument of the prolife movement. I just get rather angry about this particular subject. And I think a mother potentially laying on her death bed should have a choice to have an abortion if that is what will most likely save her life.

I am not a scientist or doctor. But logically, abortions become more difficult to perform as the baby is larger. A second and third trimester abortion aren’t done quickly, they take days of dilation. So if a woman were having some medical emergency where the baby needed to be removed, it makes more sense to give birth as opposed to abort,

As per the first trimester, let’s pretend the woman is shot in the abdomen and the bleeding cannot be controlled. The an ethical doctor isn’t going to say, “Oh well, bleed to death.” They will try different means to save the mother, surgery, transfusions medications etc. If trying to save the mother, the baby dies naturally, that is unfortunate, but not an abortion.

The same with cancer, if a pregnant woman were diagnosed with cancer in the first trimester the doctors could determine how advanced the cancer is, and determine if chemotherapy were appropriate. If the woman chooses chemotherapy and the baby dies, that isn’t a direct abortion.

Finally, the example of St.Gianna and her condition might have had a different outcome today. She died in the early sixties, there are lots of medical advances such as laser surgery, sonograms etc. that just didn’t exist back then. With today’s medical care, perhaps both St. Gianna and her daughter would be able to live.

Here are 2 links to some info from a pro-life doctor.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=573854&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=Dardano&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=4&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=570951&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=Dardano&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=10&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Cases vary from patient to patient but principles remain the same. I can assure you I have been in many such situations over my 41 years. I have never lost a mother. Yes, I have had my share of fetal loss but never without a valiant effort to salvage the pregnancy as well. Another basic moral principle that one must remember. You can never sacrifice a life to save a life. A good physician will do his or her best to preserve all life from natural conception to natural death. Finally, always in the back of my mind over the years when such situations arise is this: there is only one God and it’s not me.

 

[RedSoxWife]

I gave some examples in a earlier post. And yes I admit so far my argument has been mainly based in emotion. But what is wrong with that? And isn;t much of the prolife arguments basically based in emotion?

Pro Life arguments are based on the fact that murder is wrong. The fact that it’s wrong isn’t emotional, although when something so disgusting occurs an emotional response is called for and completely normal.

 

[St_Francis]

I would like you to either state that your last sentence it your own personal belief, or I would like you to point me to conclusive Church doctrine which states this. This is a matter of the utmost importance because if the Catholic Church actually teaches that then I must leave the Church.

Why would you leave the Church if this were the case?

I think that you are not taking into account that the spiritual world co-exists with the material world, but the latter will pass away and the former is eternal. Anything which affects the spiritual world badly is called sin. It is better for the entire material creation to pass away than one person sin, but remember that our souls are eternal, and that their eternal being is more to be protected than the mere body.

 

[Drawmack]

Are you serious?

Considering that according to the Bible God repeatedly destroyed entire nations (which it is only logical included infants and pregnant women) so that they would not continue to corrupt and pollute the world, yes. I mean, right in Genesis he destroyed the entire world (excepting Noah’s family) and one should logically assume there were both infants and pregnant women when that happened. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, which any logical person should assume included pregnant women and infants. Now, you’re telling me that the Church teaches that God would sacrifice the entire world for the sake of one innocent child. This is clearly a contradiction and at odds with much of the Bible. So, yes I would have to leave any Church which proclaimed such false doctrine.

 

[kage_ar]

Considering that according to the Bible God repeatedly destroyed entire nations (which it is only logical included infants and pregnant women) so that they would not continue to corrupt and pollute the world, yes. I mean, right in Genesis he destroyed the entire world (excepting Noah’s family) and one should logically assume there were both infants and pregnant women when that happened. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, which any logical person should assume included pregnant women and infants. Now, you’re telling me that the Church teaches that God would sacrifice the entire world for the sake of one innocent child. This is clearly a contradiction and at odds with much of the Bible. So, yes I would have to leave any Church which proclaimed such false doctrine.

Life and death belongs to God.

Once again, the Catechism

**2258 **“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”