Is abortion ever justified?

[kage_ar]

O.K. - I’m reading this about ectopic pregnancy - tubal ligation - whatever you would like to call it. I understand that the mother will die if something isn’t done- sometimes if it’s early enough they will just give mifpresterone - not sure on the spelling - and she won’t even have to have surgery. So since that would be “killing the fertilized egg” no one would have a problem still?

The ONLY treatment that is morally permitted for an ectopic pregnancy is removal of the tube or a section of the tube that contains the pregnancy. To kill the child in the tube with a drug would be a direct abortion.

In the same sense, a woman who is pregnant with a child in the uterus who has a diseased uterus (cancer, impending rupture, etc.) would be morally permitted to have the diseased organ removed - in this case the uterus. To kill the child in the utereus would be a direct abortion.

In both cases, the child will die, however, there is no direct attack on the child, there can never be a DIRECT abortion and there be a moral justification.

Removal of a diseased organ to save a life is moral.

Killing a baby directly is immoral.

 

[kage_ar]

I’ve had friends who have had ectopic pregnancies - one had surgery - the other was lucky and was able to just take a few pills and be done with the situation.
God Bless

Annie aka Ryecroft

As a mother who lost a child and a tube to an ectopic pregnancy, to hear someone say that a woman was “lucky” to “just take a few pills and be done” breaks my heart.

Your friend had a direct abortion, I will go before the blessed Sacrament today and pray for the soul of that aborted baby.

 

[kage_ar]

While this is supposed to be Roman Catholic forum, I’m going to draw upon the laws of ancient Judaism. Under (Orthodox) Jewish law, if the pregancy is going to result in the death of the mother, she is REQUIRED to abort… and then try again at a later time, if necessary. It’s under the basic doctrine that people are supposed to defend themselves and their lives, and that a pregnancy that will result in the death of the mother must be terminated in order to defend the mother from whatever harm is going to come her way otherwise.

That teaching is not “ancient”. You can read the oldest teachings of Judiasm in the Bible.

I do not have the reference at my fingertips for the date this newer teaching entered Judiasm, but, I will do the research and post back.

However, for Orthodox Jews, that is their law, and I would respect that. They are never bound by the laws or teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

God’s law is God’s law. It applies to every man, woman and child who who ever lived and who ever WILL live. It is eternal and universal.

It is our great commission to show by our example that law to all.

Strange how many Catholics come across as feeling God is only God of Catholics

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Just so you will know: I am a Jew by birthright. I went through the ritual of Bar Mitzvah at Congregation Chai Odom in the Greater Boston area. (Being born of a practicing Jewish mother, it is my birthright to be called a Jew, and I will not walk away from that.)
That was in 1962.
In 1978 I became Roman Catholic. Yes, I’m a Convert to the Faith.
As you might guess from my screen name, I’ve been more than mildly active in the Knights of Columbus, having served in all of the major offices in both the Third Degree and Fourth Degree.
What I meant (and which you clearly did not understand) was that while the Roman Catholic Church may have it’s own teachings on the subject, their teachings are not binding on those who do not adhere to that Church. You may argue all you want, but Observant Jews do not believe or accept (nor are they required to!) that Jesus was the Messiah as foretold by the ancient prophets. (There are many Orthodox Jews who will argue that Jesus never even lived, but I would disagree with them…strongly!)
Of course, the teachings of the Church are supposed to be binding on those of us who are practicing Roman Catholics. That is all well and good…as it should be. However, we can no more enforce our beliefs on those who practice Islam than we can on those who practice Judaism, or Hinduism, or any number of religions.
In short, the teachings of Rome are not binding on anyone who does not swear allegiance to the Bishop of Rome. While they might be guidelines to follow, they are still not binding. An Anglican is free to worship and conduct his or her life as he or she sees fit. The same applies to Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc etc etc. Those who cannot or will not follow the teachings of their religion deserve to be given the royal “heave-ho”, i.e. Excommunicated. (And yes, that includes such lesser lights as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Carol Shea-Porter, and any of the others who would destroy our society by attempting to redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman. I will jump for joy on the day they either change their positions on abortion or are Excommunicated from the Church.

By the way, the teachings of Judaism need not be contained within the five books of Moses in order to be official teachings of Judaism! “Bible-writing”, per se, stopped well over 1000 years ago, and I would suggest that 1000 years would constitute “ancient”. Even 500 years might do the job! But one thing to consider is that the Torah has undergone no changes over the thousands of years. The writings are the same now as they were in thge time of Jesus of Nazareth. (For proof, consider the process they use for making new Torah scrolls. They make direct copies, one of the other, one-word-at-a-time…the slowwwwwwwwwwwwwww way. No mechanization! So when you look at a Torah scrol today, it’s the same as a Torah scroll from the time of Jesus, word by word and line by line.)

 

[diggit03]

You know, if a person supports war, why not abortion. The killing of innocent lives. and by the way, abortion is not murder. murder is defined as unlawful killing. abotion is lawful killing hence it is not murder.

which is stupid actually.

I came to the conclusion after a few arguments about abortion that if we support war, we have no right to be against abortion. And the above dude is correct i believe we should not force our beliefs on others- what might be applicable to us may not be applicable to them.
(this raises other questions too though, like should i try to convert people or just chill as long as i myself am good catholic.)

Anyway, I do personally believe that abortion is wrong. miscarriages are fine, accidental termination is fine. but not willfully terminating the life within. i know a lot of people would disagree with that but i really think that if it’s a choice between my life and the baby’s (God forbid, do not bring me to the test) that it should be the baby’s…

Disclaimer: I’m young and do not claim that i know everything, but this is where i stand at the moment .

 

[PastGrandKnight]

Diggit, you wrote the following:

<>

Sorry, but the deliberate termination of any INNOCENT human life is murder. Thre is a HUGE difference between “killing”, such as in war, versus “murder”, per se. In a war, the enemy is out to kill you and everyone else on your side of the fight. They do not set out with the idea of ending any specific human life, although human lives will be lost.

The difference between “killing” (which is NOT prohibited in the Ten Commandments, so when you get the correct Hebrew-to-English translation and you will be surprised!) and “murder” is that one is “with malice aforethought”. That’s the key phrase to remember. If you decide (DON’T!) to go out tomorrow afternoon and end the life of your adversary, that is murder. But if it’s an auto accident (with emphasis on the word “accident”), that is NOT murder. True, the other person is just as dead, but we do not have 50,000 murder trials each year in the USA resulting from auto fatalities. Clearly, the law recognizes that accidents do happen. They are tragic, of course, but they are not criminal acts.

If a woman goes into a planned parenthood abortuary with the plan to have an abortion, that is the deliberate termination of an innocent human life (that of the baby!). Would I call that murder? For these purposes, yes.

This entire topic does require a lot of deep thinking in order to arrive at correct, logical answers. Having a knowledge of Hebrew helps!

 

[diggit03]

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?

 

[bobzills]

Sorry, but the deliberate termination of any INNOCENT human life is murder. Thre is a HUGE difference between “killing”, such as in war, versus “murder”, per se. In a war, the enemy is out to kill you and everyone else on your side of the fight.

Is it murder to drop an A-bomb on a city, such as Hiroshima?

 

[essayons7]

There can be valid moral justifications for war and its conduct (see the piece on this site about “Just War”).

Other than saving the mother’s life, there are NO valid moral justifications for abortion.

Period.

 

[PJM]

=bobzills;5117641]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?

Friend there are more assumptions in the first examole than I care to address.

In the case of “forceable rape” an abortinon cannot be justified because the cause does not even come close to the effect. Yes forceable rape is a horbile crime, yes it can alter ones life, however it would still be murder!

In order for any abortion to have a “moral footing” the cause must be equal to or greater than the effect.

For example: [this is my understanding]

If a pregnant women were medically advised that with 100% certainity, having the baby would result in her death, AND if she had other children at home to care for, AND the procedure was done speciffically to save the mother, NOT to abort the baby, then there would be equal or greater cause.

If however, this was a first child, the baby and the mother have equal cause, and unless it could be medically proven with 100% certainty, that the baby too would die in the birth process, an abortion cannot be done.

Love and prayers,

 

[kage_ar]

In order for any abortion to have a “moral footing” the cause must be equal to or greater than the effect.

For example: [this is my understanding]

If a pregnant women were medically advised that with 100% certainity, having the baby would result in her death, AND if she had other children at home to care for, AND the procedure was done speciffically to save the mother, NOT to abort the baby, then there would be equal or greater cause.

,

Direct abortion is always a violation of moral law. It is never justified, not in your above example or any other example. No direct abortion, ever.

 

[CathPhilosopher]

Direct abortion is always a violation of moral law. It is never justified, not in your above example or any other example. No direct abortion, ever.

As I understood the poster, it was basically a presentation of the conditions under which the “principle of double effect” applies. Stated was “AND the procedure was done specifically to save the mother, NOT to abort the baby”; in other words the baby is not directly killed, but removed from the mother in order to preserve the mother’s life, and then it dies.

 

[mjw22]

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.
2. 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?

 

[aggiecatholic05]

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.
2. 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?

no direct abortion is never justified. removing a diseased tube is not a direct abortion. removing the baby or killing it with drugs is not ok.

 

[awantz]

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.

I agree but, what if the baby is going to be murdered any way? Her husband, the father of the unborn child threatens to kill the mother if she doesn't have an abortion. The pro-life mother has no way to get away from the father of her child. Therefore, the mother is given the option of killing her baby or her dieing and the baby dieing as a result. Either way the baby is going to be murdered, directly or indirectly. What is she to do? What would you do if you were in her shoes? I know this is extremely rare, but it has happened. Just for the record, I'm not trying to say abortion is OK by posting this. I am and always have been pro-life.

 

[wanner47]

I agree but, what if the baby is going to be murdered any way? Her husband, the father of the unborn child threatens to kill the mother if she doesn’t have an abortion. The pro-life mother has no way to get away from the father of her child. Therefore, the mother is given the option of killing her baby or her dieing and the baby dieing as a result. Either way the baby is going to be murdered, directly or indirectly. What is she to do? What would you do if you were in her shoes? I know this is extremely rare, but it has happened. Just for the record, I’m not trying to say abortion is OK by posting this. I am and always have been pro-life.

When and where has this happened?

In this case, the mother should call the police and have the man arrested. The abortion clinic should also do this if they are aware the mother is being threatened with death (sadly, most won’t).

What if the man was threatening to kill the woman unless she let him have sex with her three-year-old daughter? Would you say that she should let him?

 

[awantz]

When and where has this happened?

In this case, the mother should call the police and have the man arrested. The abortion clinic should also do this if they are aware the mother is being threatened with death (sadly, most won’t).

What if the man was threatening to kill the woman unless she let him have sex with her three-year-old daughter? Would you say that she should let him?

In Elkhart, IN to me in July of 2001. I couldn’t call the police and even if I could’ve I would have been to scared. I told the abortion clinic that I didn’t want the abortion and that my ex was threatening me with death, but my ex already paid. Therefore, they did it any way.

That’s a little different, because the daughter will not die when the mother does. She should try to stop him. I am willing to risk my own life to save my child. However, in the situation I mentioned, in my previous post, it wouldn’t have saved my child’s life. My child could not live without me.

 

[wanner47]

In Elkhart, IN to me in July of 2001. I couldn’t call the police and even if I could’ve I would have been to scared. I told the abortion clinic that I didn’t want the abortion and that my ex was threatening me with death, but my ex already paid. Therefore, they did it any way.

That’s a little different, because the daughter will not die when the mother does. She should try to stop him. I am willing to risk my own life to save my child. However, in the situation I mentioned, in my previous post, it wouldn’t have saved my child’s life. My child could not live without me.

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.

 

[RobbyS]

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.
2. 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?

If the intent is to save the mother and not to kill the child, and of course the child cannot be saved --probably–if the mother dies. The tube is, of course, the child’s life support and if it goes, he dies.

 

[Joe_Brown]

Hail Mary. We pray to stop abortions!!