Is abortion ever justified?

[kage_ar]

Let me pose a different question, one not uncommon in the emergency room: a woman comes to the ER with an ectopic pregnancy (tubal pregnancy).

Here are the options

1. Leave the pregnancy in place and the woman dies – simply stated, the fallopian tubes cannot distend enough to hold a pregnancy. Once the pregnancy becomes too large the tubes will rupture and the mother will bleed to death.

This woman is in an ER. Many women come in every day with this situation, I was one of them. Yes, the tube ruptures and they do surgery and remove the ruptured tube. I have the scars to show that this happens, and I and many women on this board live to tell about a ruptured tube. In fact, most ectopics are not discovered until they do rupture. Death due to ectopic rupture is very rare with modern medicine.

1. abort the pregnancy and prevent morbidity / mortality to the mother – this is most commonly done with methotrexate early on or surgery if the pregnancy is already too large.

Is abortion justified if it is a medical necessesity?

To give medicine to destroy a baby is a direct abortion. The tube may be removed, this is not a direct abortion.

 

[RobbyS]

This woman is in an ER. Many women come in every day with this situation, I was one of them. Yes, the tube ruptures and they do surgery and remove the ruptured tube. I have the scars to show that this happens, and I and many women on this board live to tell about a ruptured tube. In fact, most ectopics are not discovered until they do rupture. Death due to ectopic rupture is very rare with modern medicine.

To give medicine to destroy a baby is a direct abortion. The tube may be removed, this is not a direct abortion.

The old maxim is that hard cases make bad law. The fact is, though, that doctors, like bankers, tend to do what is expedient. They will tend to do the easy thing rather than the hard. If they have little regard for the life of the child, they will of course be more quick to sacrifice him.

 

[ryecroft]

diggit03
New Member Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 7
Religion: catholic

Re: Is abortion ever justified?

---

PastGrandKnight:

Main Entry: 1mur·der
<<Pronunciation: \ˈmər-dər\
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
Date: before 12th century

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Merrian Webster.

As for the rest of your post- what point are you trying to make? >>

Not trying to just be devil’s advocate, but it does say “unlawfully” - it is lawfull in this Country -

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Not trying to just be devil’s advocate, but it does say “unlawfully” - it is lawfull in this Country -

we are Never obliged to obey unjust laws. as abortion is always wrong, it is always murder regardless of what a piece of paper with a law on it says.

abortion is always wrong. no justification, never.

 

[bobzills]

we are Never obliged to obey unjust laws. as abortion is always wrong, it is always murder regardless of what a piece of paper with a law on it says.

abortion is always wrong. no justification, never.

Then why are so many Catholic women taking the abortifacient birth control pills?

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Then why are so many Catholic women taking the abortifacient birth control pills?

why do so many Catholics lie, miss Mass, steal, or kill?

it is because we are all sinners and live in a fallen world. just because we make mistakes doesnt mean we should give up the fight to protect the most innocent.

 

[BiologyBrain]

why do so many Catholics lie, miss Mass, steal, or kill?

it is because we are all sinners and live in a fallen world. just because we make mistakes doesnt mean we should give up the fight to protect the most innocent.

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy::tiphat::bowdown::bowdown2::yeah_me:

 

[PJM]

**I disagree with these two views! PJM **

Direct abortion is never right, always wrong. Murder is murder, no matter how you try to dress it up and call it a fluffy bunny.

we are Never obliged to obey unjust laws. as abortion is always wrong, it is always murder regardless of what a piece of paper with a law on it says.

abortion is always wrong. no justification, never.

Do you remember when Jesus was telling his Apostles that He would have to suffer and die, and Peter said “no Lord.” Jesus looked at Peter and said “get away from me satan.”

Was Jesus calling Peter “satan?” No, Jesus was saying, “you don’t understand the mind and will of God.”

That seems to be the case here.

Direct intended Abortion is defined as the intentional and willfull murder of the holy innocent. It is always murder in the first degree. It is always an “intrinsic evil” and it is always a GRAVE Mortal sin!

However, rare as they may be, when circumstances “tolerate” an abortion. There can exist, a sufficient “cause and effect” that would morally permit such an action, If the cause and if the effect can and do equal the UNPLANED death of the baby.

What am I saying?

I am saying that uder certain circumstances, that cannot in any way, shape of form, have as the effect, the “willfull murder” of the baby.

But if conditions were to be such that with 100% medical certainilty, that delivering the baby would result in both the mothers death and the babies death, because the mother too has a God given right to live, knowing that God Himself has created the circumstances, it would be morally permitted to take the baby and allow the mother to live.

One can never INTEND to Murder the baby, even if one is aware that it will very likely result in the death of the infant.

Keep in mind for a sin to be “Mortal” pre-knowledge INTENT is absolutely necessary.

If there is a chance that “the mother may die and the baby live” then abortion is not a moral option.

If the mother were to live but the baby will be retarded, deformed, ect., abortion is not an option!

The point is WWJD? What would Jesus do?

God can create circumstances when there may exist [extremely rare] circumstances, when the cause and effect are equal, or tilted in favor of the mother.

Like the “Sabbath” which is made for man, the Commandments are alos made for us, not for God.

I will end this post, that it would be completely immoral to seek “excuses” for a “just cause” decision.

Love and prayers,

 

[kage_ar]

But if conditions were to be such that with 100% medical certainilty, that delivering the baby would result in both the mothers death and the babies death, because the mother too has a God given right to live, knowing that God Himself has created the circumstances, it would be morally permitted to take the baby and allow the mother to live.

,

What you say here is contrary to the eternal teaching of Holy Mother Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

**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:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2322.htm

**2322 **From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (*GS *27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

 

[PJM]

=kage_ar;5144527]What you say here is contrary to the eternal teaching of Holy Mother Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2271.htm

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:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. **Life must be protected with the utmost care **from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

My dear friend in Christ,

I really appreciate your enthusiastic support of our Churches teaching, however I fear you may not completely understand what these statements are actually saying?

1. “Direct Abortion” what does this mean?

It means that there is direct intent to cause a termination of life, without having a “cause” that equals the life of the aborted infant. It is DIRECT and WILLFULL MURDER!

1. “Willed as an end or means” What does this mean?

It means that one cannot willfully, knowingly cause or permit an abortion, IF this is the OBJECTIVE end of the procedure. In other words, the death of the infant cannot be the OBJECTIVE, yet it is POSSIBLE, in extreme circumstances, that when the death of the baby is the result of efforts that equal and thus off-set, the death of the infant; although the infant may die, the resulting GOOD is equivalent to the BAD.

Never, Never, may the death of the infant be the Object of consideration. Rather, it is a cause and effect situation that says in an effort to Do SOMETHING GOOD AND NOBLE, something bad may be unavoidable?

The Objective decision is to “do the good” NOT TO cause the "bad."

**2322 **From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a “criminal” practice (*GS *27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life.

Again we see the same language used.

It speaks of willfull knowlege and DIRECT intent to kill the baby. Of course this is always GRAVELT Sinfull.

The circumstances that I layed out:

Had NO Direct willingness to kill the baby, although this may be an end result.

The circumsatnces have to meet two criteria.

1. No Direct willfull intent to kill the baby as an Objective!
2. A Good that at least equals the “bad”: “A life for a life” or a life for several lifes.

Granted these are extremly rare circumstances, but they can and do happen.

Agian your support of Church Teaching is noteworthy. Thank you. But be careful that you understand precisely what is being taught.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[kage_ar]

1. No Direct willfull intent to kill the baby as an Objective!
2. A Good that at least equals the “bad”: “A life for a life” or a life for several lifes.

Granted these are extremly rare circumstances, but they can and do happen.

Agian your support of Church Teaching is noteworthy. Thank you. But be careful that you understand precisely what is being taught.

Love and prayers,

Pat

You dance around quite a bit to justify direct abortion.

Direct abortion is just that, a direct abortion. An act that is surgucal or chemical for the intent of killing a pre born baby.

Good equals bad, life for life, that is moral relativism, it is not part of the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

 

[RosaryFan]

Lawful doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. That’s why abortion, technically, is “killing”, not “murdering”. But it is still a mortal sin - which is all that really matters when you get down to it.

 

[PJM]

=kage_ar;5148379]You dance around quite a bit to justify direct abortion.

Direct abortion is just that, a direct abortion. An act that is surgucal or chemical for the intent of killing a pre born baby.

Good equals bad, life for life, that is moral relativism, it is not part of the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

God bless you friend!

Have a wonderful life.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We all know that abortion is wrong. But consider the following scenario: A man is dying of kidney failure and must find a kidney somewhere. But he cannot, so his wife pays a mobster to kidnap and drug a young woman. The mobster knows an excellent surgeon who can be bought and the doctor surgically connects the woman to the man so that the sick man can now live since he can tap off of the kidney of the woman. The woman then wakes up from the surgery and finds herself surgically connected by tubes to this sick man who needs her kidney. It is possible for the woman to easily remove these tubes any time she wants and disconnect the life support of the man, which will then result in the instant death of the man to whom she has been connected.
Now does this woman have a moral obligation to keep this man alive ? Or is she morally justified in removing these tubes?
What does this have to do with abortion? Consider the case of a woman who has been forcibly raped? There are differences between the two cases, but are there not some similarities which may be relevant when considering the morality of the actions of removing the tubes versus the morality of an abortion in the case of violent rape?

Can there be exceptionless moral directives ? Your question is an application of that. IMO, if any moral directive becomes exceptionless, it frusrates itself. Moral directives that don’t work in life as it really is may be very noble and elevated, but that is no good whatever if they cannnot be applied in practice. I think that is true of abortion - it’s all very well to have an elevated & developed ethical position that forbids it absolutely, but how on earth is it to be applied in all of the Third World ? If the TW had adequate medical care everywhere, this exceptionless directive might be applicable in every instance. The TW does not - so this exceptionless directive is impossible to live by. Sometimes, abortion is the only way there is of saving the mother’s life; lamentable as this way is. But life is like that - it’s not a very good “theatre” for those who insist that certain things are never, on any account, imaginable or unimaginable, to be done. If we lived in the best of all possible worlds, an absolute prohibition on abortion would be possible to live by, & would not be needed. But we do not - we live in a very imperfect world, in which the evil of killing the foetus is sometimes the price that has to be paid for not letting the mother die.​

There is also the point that affluent Christians have no business requiring of their poverty-stricken co-religionists that the latter must live as though they had access to all the medical care available to their richer brethren. Those who have to live in the slums of Haiti or on a rubbish-heap in Cairo do not have quite the access to obs & gyn medicine enjoyed by those whose income is enough to buy a Mercedes every year. If abortion is to vanish - so must poverty. As long as poverty lasts - so will abortion.

 

[awantz]

I am so sorry that happened to you. It is a tragedy that you were treated so cruelly. For what it’s worth, given you were under extreme duress and being terrorized, the fault lies with your ex and the abortionist that ignored your request for help.

However, just because you felt you didn’t have options didn’t mean those options didn’t exist. If abortion had been illegal, perhaps that wouldn’t have happened to you.

Again, I am truly sorry for what happened to you. Please know that you and your baby are in my prayers. I’m assuming you’re in a better situation now, and I’m glad of that.

Thanks

I didn’t just feel that way. That was the way it was. I can’t drive and had no way to get a hold of anyone else. What options were there for me?

Thanks for your prayers. I named my baby, Serena. I had a gut feeling it was a girl. Yes, I am. Me too.

 

[wanner47]

Thanks

I didn’t just feel that way. That was the way it was. I can’t drive and had no way to get a hold of anyone else. What options were there for me?

Thanks for your prayers. I named my baby, Serena. I had a gut feeling it was a girl. Yes, I am. Me too.

Well, there’s no use, really, in playing the “what-if” game, and I don’t want to cause you any more pain; suffice it to say that the people at the clinic who should have helped you failed to do so.

 

[Nino]

Maryellen,Perfect answer…two wrongs never make a right! And of course the domino theory is just that…justify one reason to murder this innocent developing baby and one can,as humans we tend to do that,think up another,and another etc one. One of the main reasons for abortion by the pro-aborts was this heart rendering statement…'Every child a wanted child!" this was so clever.Another was ‘Abortion will eliminate child abuse’ and so it went…of course this opposite has occured…child abuse is rampant for if life is that cheap well not why. Satan is a master of deceit as JEHoover declared…and like city bank…it never sleeps.

 

[aggiecatholic05]

Another was ‘Abortion will eliminate child abuse’

i always thought the people who believed that must be fools or terribly ignorant. what worse abuse of a child could there be but to kill them before they are allowed to even draw a breath?

 

[awantz]

Another was ‘Abortion will eliminate child abuse’

Abortion is child abuse.

 

[Jermosh]

You dance around quite a bit to justify direct abortion.

Direct abortion is just that, a direct abortion. An act that is surgucal or chemical for the intent of killing a pre born baby.

Good equals bad, life for life, that is moral relativism, it is not part of the teaching of Holy Mother Church.

This is a fussy area with terms. Abortion basically means induced misscariage for legal and medical terms, so a Ectopic pregnancy tubal removal will technically cause an abortion, as will Chemo or emergency Medicine. But its not the intent of the procedure, so its not really a direct abortion. I believe this is what PMJ is speaking of, if they are speaking of directly aborting the child, then yes that is always wrong.