In what cases or scenarios would abortion be OK

[domandcarols]

There are absolutely no exceptions for murder.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Yes. I am a veterinarian and do surgery nearly every working day. Not in the same moral league, but I understand the point you’re trying to make.

I would hope that the surgeons in your family would follow medical ethical guidelines, such that they are, and discuss the “what to do if” scenario with the family and patient prior to doing the surgery.

What you’re discussing is an entirely separate issue. We are discussing abortion. The only possible scenario I can imagine is a pregnant woman brought in under emergency circumstances, unable to communicate her wishes to “save her baby under any circumstance, even at the cost of her life” and has no family immediately available to let the medical staff know of her wishes.

In such a scenario, of course the surgeon has to make the (medical) call on whether to save the baby or save the mom. Presumably, he would save the mom. But such would not be an abortion in its intent. Presumably, as well, the surgeon would not purposely terminate the pregnancy unless it was absolutely necessary to save the mom’s life. In such an “either/or” situation, and especially in an emergency where all involved do not have time to consider the moral implications, it is doubtful whether the surgeon would be held morally responsible for the baby’s death.

In general, though, would anyone really want to leave the moral decision making up to the doctor? I sure would not. I want my doctor to assess, to the best of his or her ability, what is the best course of prevention and treatment for my maladies. When the end comes, I want him or her to advise me and or my loved ones of such, but he or she has no business to make the decision to terminate treatment or life support.

The moral role of the physician is to give information on which the people involved can make a moral decision, no more. Certainly they can suggest alternatives; stopping treatment, hospice care, etc… that is their job to assess and inform…medically speaking.

I’m sure doctors get asked all the time, “What would you do?”. I hear “If this was your (dog, cat, etc.) what would you do?”. It’s a common question but a very difficult one to answer, but neither human nor veterinary doctors have any business making the decision for their patients or clients. Our role is to advise, not to decide.

 

[Corki]

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

In my reply, I was referring to your post, not the OP’s.

You seem to want to leave each situation up to the medical professionals. Doctors are very good at assessing the medical implications of a situation but they do not necessarily have the training or background to assess the moral implications of a course of action. Not everything that is medically sound is moral. You certainly must listen to your doctor’s medical advice but ALSO get advice on the moral implications of a medical procedure.

The only time an abortion is tolerated (it’s still not “ok”) is when it is the unintended secondary effect of a medical procedure. The procedure itself cannot be to abort the child.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Yes. I am a veterinarian and do surgery nearly every working day. Not in the same moral league, but I understand the point you’re trying to make.

I would hope that the surgeons in your family would follow medical ethical guidelines, such that they are, and discuss the “what to do if” scenario with the family and patient prior to doing the surgery.

What you’re discussing is an entirely separate issue. We are discussing abortion. The only possible scenario I can imagine is a pregnant woman brought in under emergency circumstances, unable to communicate her wishes to “save her baby under any circumstance, even at the cost of her life” and has no family immediately available to let the medical staff know of her wishes.

In such a scenario, of course the surgeon has to make the (medical) call on whether to save the baby or save the mom. Presumably, he would save the mom. But such would not be an abortion in its intent. Presumably, as well, the surgeon would not purposely terminate the pregnancy unless it was absolutely necessary to save the mom’s life. In such an “either/or” situation, and especially in an emergency where all involved do not have time to consider the moral implications, it is doubtful whether the surgeon would be held morally responsible for the baby’s death.

In general, though, would anyone really want to leave the moral decision making up to the doctor? I sure would not. I want my doctor to assess, to the best of his or her ability, what is the best course of prevention and treatment for my maladies. When the end comes, I want him or her to advise me and or my loved ones of such, but he or she has no business to make the decision to terminate treatment or life support.

The moral role of the physician is to give information on which the people involved can make a moral decision, no more. Certainly they can suggest alternatives; stopping treatment, hospice care, etc… that is their job to assess and inform…medically speaking.

I’m sure doctors get asked all the time, “What would you do?”. I hear “If this was your (dog, cat, etc.) what would you do?”. It’s a common question but a very difficult one to answer, but neither human nor veterinary doctors have any business making the decision for their patients or clients. Our role is to advise, not to decide.

My son is a doctor. In University he has Ethics, and they debatedmany scenarions. He is a Catholic Person. and he tells me that every day, in various circumstances, doctors have to make decisions. and they cannot count on familiy for the possibilities require so much chemichal knowledge that is up to them to decide.

It seems to me that some posts here seem to indicate that the doctors do not have formation in Ethics and Doctors cannot be Catholics and doctors do not hve feelings and hearts and pains of conscience.

I know from his voice when my son had a painful situation at he hospital. I know him and I know he is not a robot but a person.

 

[thistle]

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ABORTION. In Catholic morality, abortion is either direct (induced) or indirect. Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil.

Indirect abortion is the foreseen but merely permitted evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb. The evacuation is not the intended or directly willed result, but the side effect, of some legitimate procedure. As such it is morally allowable.

The essential sinfulness of direct abortion consists in the homicidal intent to kill innocent life. This factor places the controverted question as to precisely when human life begins, outside the ambit of the moral issue; as it also makes the now commonly held Catholic position that human life begins at conception equally outside the heart of the Church’s teaching about the grave sinfulness of direct abortion.

Abortion was condemned by the Church since apostolic times. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed before A.D. 100, told the faithful “You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child” (II,2). Direct abortion and infanticide were from the beginning placed on the same level of malice.

Hundreds of ecclesiastical documents from the first century through the present testify to the same moral doctrine, with such nuances as time, place, and circumstances indicated. The Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception,” so that “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, IV, 51). Pope Paul VI confirmed this teaching in 1974. “Respect for human life,” he wrote, “is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother. It is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.” Consequently, “divine law and natural reason exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent human being” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, III, 12). (Etym. Latin abortivus, born prematurely, abortive; from aboriri, to miscarry.)

 

[Nicole8712]

So let us make sure that we follow the logic presented here.

1. God allowed the ectopic pregnancy to occur. BUT
2. God does not want the embryo removed because that would be murder EVEN THOUGH
3. HE allowed the ectopic pregnancy to occur in the first place; which would ultimately result in the death of both.
4. God commands us to procreate, but the Church commands that the entire tube be removed as it is “diseased”, which will effect future fertility, thereby going against the command to procreate.
5. The tube is not diseased. It is sort of like pretending the tube is damaged so that the removal of the embryonic tissue can be justified without going against the “abortion is always wrong” dogma.

 

[ahs]

So let us make sure that we follow the logic presented here.

1. God allowed the ectopic pregnancy to occur. BUT
2. God does not want the embryo removed because that would be murder EVEN THOUGH
3. HE allowed the ectopic pregnancy to occur in the first place; which would ultimately result in the death of both.
4. God commands us to procreate, but the Church commands that the entire tube be removed as it is “diseased”, which will effect future fertility, thereby going against the command to procreate.
5. The tube is not diseased. It is sort of like pretending the tube is damaged so that the removal of the embryonic tissue can be justified without going against the “abortion is always wrong” dogma.

You didn’t read the information provided. In an ectopic pregnancy, both mother and child will die because the tube will rupture in a matter of time. In such a case, a procedure may be performed to remove the tube. The hope would be that both child and mother will be saved by the procedure, but the reality is that the child cannot survive outside the womb and will die. The death of the child is an unintended consequence of a life-saving procedure. It becomes an “indirect abortion”, where abortion is not intended, but is an unfortunate consequence of a life-saving operation.

Abortion, on the other hand, has as its primary goal, the death of the baby. That is never okay.