In what cases or scenarios would abortion be OK

[JD27076]

I would think an abotion would be OK under the knowing you, the parent, would die along with the child at childbirth. But can someone clear this up? Thank you.

 

[KCT]

I would think an abotion would be OK under the knowing you, the parent, would die along with the child at childbirth. But can someone clear this up? Thank you.

First, can you explain why you think that’s OK?

 

[mwncheesehead]

There is no circumstance which makes the direct killing of an innocent child in the womb permissable. In the the case in which the mother’s life is in danger, it is always wrong to destroy the life of the baby. The goal is to save both lives, but the evil of murder (killing the baby) is never condoned because it may bring about a good (saving the life of the mother). Please look refer to the life and death of St. Gianna as an example of a true mother who loved her unborn child - even to death.

 

[1ke]

Abortion is a moral evil and there are no circumstances that make it moral. So, no.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I would think an abotion would be OK under the knowing you, the parent, would die along with the child at childbirth. But can someone clear this up? Thank you.

That is a fine line point and I think it is up to the doctors to decide. There are borderline cases and those are the ones which are the worst to talk about the meaning of subjects: life, death, abortion and so on.

We must see it is a latitude more complex. Doctors have to make heartbreaking decisions, for instance in twin separation cases where they share common organs. I, myself, do not like to give clear opinions on things that are too complex for me to judge.

Suppose that I am a mother and I have a tumor in the womb and my be taken out now and I will live but the baby not but if operated later, we will both die. And if one os us live. and if all of us live. And if, meanwhile, doctors discover a new substance to cure to cure my tumor.

I hate discussions when someone is trying to decide which country belongs the egg that the hen has put exactly in the middle of the border between Mexico and the USA to. Everybody shouts and no one is right.

 

[JRKH]

I would think an abortion would be OK under the knowing you, the parent, would die along with the child at childbirth. But can someone clear this up? Thank you.

I’m not sure that I understand you here. I cannot think of a case where a child can be carried to “childbirth” (carried to term) and not have a very good chance of being successfully delivered either by normal birth or by c-section.

BUT - I will try to answer the intent of your question.
If both are in danger of death then every effort needs to be made to save both. Abortion (the intentional killing of the child) is not permitted. If the child dies or if the mother dies during the effort to save both, then that is not abortion.

Let me as you this question…related to a more specific scenario…
As the mother, you are in a terrible accident. You are conscious but are told that unless you terminate the pregnancy (currently at about 5 months gestation) , you will weaken, slip into a coma and eventually die. They can keep you on life support long enough to deliver your child but after that…
Do YOU save yourself or do you save your baby?

Peace
James

 

[Corki]

That is a fine line point and I think it is up to the doctors to decide. There are borderline cases and those are the ones which are the worst to talk about the meaning of subjects: life, death, abortion and so on.

You are speaking of cases where abortion would be medically permissable. Since the OP put this question under the heading of moral theology, I think he/she was asking whether there are instances where it is *morally *permissable. To that the answer is “no”. There is no case where the direct killing of an unborn child is morally permissable.

 

[JD27076]

Ok thanks guys. I know now, that NO abortion is morally permissable.

 

[promethius]

Ok thanks guys. I know now, that NO abortion is morally permissable.

Well, don’t go off just yet. While no ABORTION is morally acceptable, another medical procedure, which does not directly kill the child but may result in a passive abortion as an undesired side effect MAY be allowed in order to save the life of the mother.

For example, and ectopic pregnancy will result in the death of both the baby and the mother. In this case, an abortive drug or procedure is NOT allowed… however, tubal litigation (I think that’s what the process is called) IS allowed, since it meets all of the requirements of the principle of double effect. (namely, primary goal not evil, act itself morally neutral or good, proportionality of primary cause to secondary effect)

 

[Joe_Kelley]

…

For example, and ectopic pregnancy will result in the death of both the baby and the mother. In this case, an abortive drug or procedure is NOT allowed… however, tubal litigation (I think that’s what the process is called) IS allowed, since it meets all of the requirements of the principle of double effect. (namely, primary goal not evil, act itself morally neutral or good, proportionality of primary cause to secondary effect)

As I understand it, “tubal ligation” is a tying of the tube to prevent conception. I think you are referring to complete removal of the diseased tube.

 

[turnsoflife]

I would think in cases of endoptic pregnancy or the baby is being strangulated by the embilical chord where the chance of baby’s survival is deemed not possible by the doctor and the death of the baby would cause the death of the mother an abortion could be done by the decision of the doctor and the family

 

[thistle]

I would think an abotion would be OK under the knowing you, the parent, would die along with the child at childbirth. But can someone clear this up? Thank you.

An abortion is NEVER okay.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You are speaking of cases where abortion would be medically permissable. Since the OP put this question under the heading of moral theology, I think he/she was asking whether there are instances where it is *morally *permissable. To that the answer is “no”. There is no case where the direct killing of an unborn child is morally permissable.

Abortion is no different from other life and death cases that may happen in life. In Titanic, who sould be saved or die, in war, should you leave behind a wounded companion to save the others, in hostage taking.
To sit here, sipping a good coffee and eating biscuits and giving solutions it is easy. when you are in the field, you must do hard choices. For instance, the atomic bomb in Japan that would save 3 million people was a good choice?
To say “never” is to know all the details of every medical issue and it is too hard.
As in every other aspect, life is sacred must be saved and doctors are trained to do that.
I would not dare to make sweeping answers…

 

[thistle]

Abortion is no different from other life and death cases that may happen in life. In Titanic, who sould be saved or die, in war, should you leave behind a wounded companion to save the others, in hostage taking.
To sit here, sipping a good coffee and eating biscuits and giving solutions it is easy. when you are in the field, you must do hard choices. For instance, the atomic bomb in Japan that would save 3 million people was a good choice?
To say “never” is to know all the details of every medical issue and it is too hard.
As in every other aspect, life is sacred must be saved and doctors are trained to do that.
I would not dare to make sweeping answers…

Corki is correct. There are no circumstances where the direct killing of an unborn child is morally permissable. You may call that a sweeping statement but it is the truth.
Abortion is not something that can be compared to the examples you gave.

 

[Corki]

Abortion is no different from other life and death cases that may happen in life. In Titanic, who sould be saved or die, in war, should you leave behind a wounded companion to save the others, in hostage taking.
To sit here, sipping a good coffee and eating biscuits and giving solutions it is easy. when you are in the field, you must do hard choices. For instance, the atomic bomb in Japan that would save 3 million people was a good choice?
To say “never” is to know all the details of every medical issue and it is too hard.
As in every other aspect, life is sacred must be saved and doctors are trained to do that.
I would not dare to make sweeping answers…

All of your examples are loss of life that is a forseen but unintended consequence. That is not what a direct abortion is. A direct abortion is the intended killing of an unborn child. There is a clear moral difference between the two types of situations.

This is why it is moral to, for example, remove a cancerous uterine tumor even if it may secondarily cause the death of an unborn child but it is not moral to simply abort the child as the “treatment” for any malady.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

All of your examples are loss of life that is a forseen but unintended consequence. That is not what a direct abortion is. A direct abortion is the intended killing of an unborn child. There is a clear moral difference between the two types of situations.

This is why it is moral to, for example, remove a cancerous uterine tumor even if it may secondarily cause the death of an unborn child but it is not moral to simply abort the child as the “treatment” for any malady.

The distinction between the intended killing of an unborn child and the secondary effect of causing the death of the child is not always an easy one to draw. What if the cancerous tumor is actually in the baby? Then the removal of the tumor could end up looking exactly like an abortion, even though the motivation was different. (This assumes that the tumor is not operable in utero, and that the only way to remove the tumor is to remove the baby.)

 

[Newbie2]

There is no circumstance which makes the direct (intentional) killing of an innocent child in the womb permissable. In the the case in which the mother’s life is in danger, it is always wrong to destroy the life of the baby. The goal is to save both lives, but the evil of murder (killing the baby) is never condoned because it may bring about a good (saving the life of the mother). Please look refer to the life and death of St. Gianna as an example of a true mother who loved her unborn child - even to death.

I would add “intentional” to the above (red).

That is a fine line point and I think it is up to the doctors to decide. There are borderline cases and those are the ones which are the worst to talk about the meaning of subjects: life, death, abortion and so on.

We must see it is a latitude more complex. Doctors have to make heartbreaking decisions, for instance in twin separation cases where they share common organs. I, myself, do not like to give clear opinions on things that are too complex for me to judge.

Suppose that I am a mother and I have a tumor in the womb and my be taken out now and I will live but the baby not but if operated later, we will both die. And if one os us live. and if all of us live. And if, meanwhile, doctors discover a new substance to cure to cure my tumor.

I hate discussions when someone is trying to decide which country belongs the egg that the hen has put exactly in the middle of the border between Mexico and the USA to. Everybody shouts and no one is right.

Are you suggesting that we should leave the moral decision making to medical professionals?

Abortion is no different from other life and death cases that may happen in life. In Titanic, who sould be saved or die, in war, should you leave behind a wounded companion to save the others, in hostage taking.
To sit here, sipping a good coffee and eating biscuits and giving solutions it is easy. when you are in the field, you must do hard choices. For instance, the atomic bomb in Japan that would save 3 million people was a good choice?
To say “never” is to know all the details of every medical issue and it is too hard.
As in every other aspect, life is sacred must be saved and doctors are trained to do that.
I would not dare to make sweeping answers…

I would disagree to some extent. Perhaps when there are double-effect cases, yeah, those are tough. However, the vast majority of abortions simply involve women who do not want the baby, at least in the USA and I would guess elsewhere.

Church teaching is very clear on this; the intentional taking of an innocent human life is forbidden.

Corki is correct. There are no circumstances where the direct killing of an unborn child is morally permissable. You may call that a sweeping statement but it is the truth.
Abortion is not something that can be compared to the examples you gave.

dittos.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Corki is correct. There are no circumstances where the direct killing of an unborn child is morally permissable. You may call that a sweeping statement but it is the truth.
Abortion is not something that can be compared to the examples you gave.

The way you put thing transforms the situation. Did I talk about “direct” killing? About “killing”? Your deduction and statement and conclusion, not my words neither my thought.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

All of your examples are loss of life that is a forseen but unintended consequence. That is not what a direct abortion is. A direct abortion is the intended killing of an unborn child. There is a clear moral difference between the two types of situations.

This is why it is moral to, for example, remove a cancerous uterine tumor even if it may secondarily cause the death of an unborn child but it is not moral to simply abort the child as the “treatment” for any malady.

The OP did not use the word “direct abortion”. So, I will not get pinned down to that statement but to the OP scenario.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I would add “intentional” to the above (red).

Are you suggesting that we should leave the moral decision making to medical professionals?

Are you a surgeon? Or shall he stop the operation when he is in trouble and comes out and waits for the comittee to decide while the patient dies in the operation table? My family has many doctors and I have heard many heart-wrenching stories of hard decisions to make.

I would disagree to some extent. Perhaps when there are double-effect cases, yeah, those are tough. However, the vast majority of abortions simply involve women who do not want the baby, at least in the USA and I would guess elsewhere.

Church teaching is very clear on this; the intentional taking of an innocent human life is forbidden.

That was not the subject of this thread and what the OP intended to ask. That answer is easy. Do not make me say that I support abortion for women that do not want the baby !!! come on !!! Let’s keep to the point!

dittos.