Is abortion ever OK?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hwinston
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hwinston

Guest
I’m sure there’s a term for arguing, ad nauseum, specific situations or examples where a certain moral teaching may be less obvious, so here’s one.

Is it ever acceptable, according to official Church teaching, to choose the life of a mother over the life of an unborn child?
 
I’ll bite. If the baby has implanted in the Fallopian tube, where it can not live and will kill the mother if it stays.

If both of them will die but you could save the mother then I believe it is allowed. If the baby could live but it is a risk to the mother then no. All women risk their lives in childbearing… it is just a fact of nature and the human condition.
-D
 
And even in that instance (this is covered in Ask an Apologist, so go there for a much clearer wording) the procedure must be done in such a way as to clearly save the mother’s life, not terminate the child’s life… i.e. you can’t evacuate the child out of the tube, you must remove the tube with the child intact, though knowing that the child cannot survive outside the mother’s body, but not killing the child willfully.
 
also medications may not be taken to kill the fetus and cause it to be be absorbed by the tube. This leaves the tube intact and healthy for future childbearing but is direct not inadvertant killing. The ends do not justify the means.
 
In an ectopic pregnancy, (where the embryo is growing inside the fallopian tube), the tube may be removed to save the mother’s life, which would be threatened when it ruptures. Removing the tube is not a direct attack on the child, and so is permissible under the principle of double effect, since the death of the child is not the intended result. If the embryo cannot pass down the fallopian tube into the womb, it will eventually be doomed.

JimG
 
I remember reading something about porportionality in the case of two lives being at risk. Anyone know anything more about that concept?

-D
 
Sorry. I cannot believe abortion is o.k. under any circumstances. Guess some people have fallen away from the organization of: A.I.M. (Abortion Is Murder). Children are more precious and closest to the heart of Jesus than any other person upon Earth; He even said so. “and woe to anyone who hurts one of these” he said cuddling a child. At conception a child begins life…growing, forming himself/herself; much in the same was as us growing from childhood to adulthood…life is always growing, regardless of what stage it’s in, is still life.
Another: What about Fathers’ rights? They have none?
All things should be done to protect the child, regardless what; theres always someone wanting the child if you don’t.
You can thank God your mom didn’t believe in abortion, huh?
Could be that unborn child will be born in Heaven, and next to God when it comes time for your judgement?
 
One thing to keep in mind, as long as the procedure does not have the intent to kill the child, but rather the death of the child is an unfortunate effect (eg a salpingectomy to remove the fallopian tube involved in an ectopic preganancy), the procedure really should not be called or defined as an abortion. By definition in abortion procedure the intent of the procedure is to kill the child.

In Christ
 
40.png
hwinston:
I’m sure there’s a term for arguing, ad nauseum, specific situations or examples where a certain moral teaching may be less obvious, so here’s one.

Is it ever acceptable, according to official Church teaching, to choose the life of a mother over the life of an unborn child?
Click to expand...
We just recently had a Saint canonized that choose the life of her child over hers, and her husband and children attended the ceremoney, Gianna Molla died at 39 to save the life of her child.
It’s a hard one to call, but what love this woman had for her unborn child.
Saint GIANNA pray for the unborn.
 
40.png
KowboyM:
Sorry. I cannot believe abortion is o.k. under any circumstances. Guess some people have fallen away from the organization of: A.I.M. (Abortion Is Murder)…
The church does not prohibit procedures necessary to save the life of the mother. A woman is allowed to chose the child’s life over hers, but not obligated. Another example is a woman who contracted uterine cancer during pregnancy. She had her baby and she died shortly thereafter. She has been canonized a saint.

I have a problem with prohibiting abortion in all cases especially enforcing this on someone who will die as a result. This is the one instnace in which “choice” should be allowed. If we were to band together all those who believe abortion is wrong except in the case of life of the mother, incest and rape we would have 87% of the population on our side and might have a chance at legislating this. The fact is 98% of abortions are performed for other reasons. Only 2% are cases involving rape, incest or life of the mother cases. Imagine if we could make 98% of abortions illegal. That would put a lot of abortion mills out of business.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Kevin Cassidy:
also medications may not be taken to kill the fetus and cause it to be be absorbed by the tube. This leaves the tube intact and healthy for future childbearing but is direct not inadvertant killing. The ends do not justify the means.
Click to expand...
Do you have a resource on this? I really don’t see the difference between taking a medication to save the mother’s life and removing a tube to save the mother’s life. :confused: It would seem to me the more reasonable thing to do would be the method to maintain the woman’s fertility. The outcome is the same and the reason for doing it is the same.
 
If the treatment of the mother who has an ectopic pregnancy results in the death of the child this is acceptable. In more eloquent words:

4. Medical necessity. What about the argument that the Church must make exceptions to its teaching when abortion is medically necessary for the mother’s health or a child’s disability?
First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a “secondary effect.” For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0898.asp
 
I have trouble with this removal of the tube business.
I have been told that removing the tube is not directly killing the embryo - that the procedure is done to treat the “defective bulging tube”
So…the reasoning goes - that treating the bulging tube is not the same as directly removing the embryo.

I don’ t agree with this argument.
The tube is healthy. It is bulging and about to rupture because of the growing embryo. So…to say that the “bulging tube” is to be removed - is to say that the CAUSE of the bulge is to also be removed.
Removing the “bulging” yet healthy tube - along with the cause of of the bulging (the embryo) IS STILL directly killing the embryo.
I really cannot see the difference between this procedure and removing only the embryo itself - except that people are being TOLD there is a difference!

To me the issue is the one originally raised - is it ever justified?
Is the mother expected to wait and hope for the best?
Is she to pray that God will be kind and she won’t bleed to death?

I really think this is a situation that needs more examination and clarity from our shepherds.
 
The reason it can never be done is that it is never moral to do something evil even if good may come of it. This principle underlies the entire system of Christian ethics and to erode it causes a slippery slope with devastating consequences.

The Church has provided for us an easy guide to navigate these difficult issues, The Principle of Double Effect. The PODE specifies 4 points under which an act must qualify in order to be moral. The points are as follows:
  1. The act itself must be good or at least morally neutral.
  2. The good effect must be directly intended.
  3. The good effect must come from the act itself and not from the evil effect.
  4. The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion than the evil effect. (This is where the proportional “weighing” of the act comes in. Note that some “proportionalist” theologians hold that this is the ONLY point that matters in the moral analysis).
In applying the tubal pregnancy situation we would find the following:

Removing the Tube
  1. The act of removing a tube is morally neutral. OK
  2. The intended effect is saving the mother from a ruptured tube. The unintended, yet foreseen effect is the death of the baby. OK
  3. Removing the tube removes the possiblity of rupture which would harm the mother. OK
  4. The act results on the saving of the mother’s life and the death of the baby. As weighed against the death of the baby and mother. The act is proportional. OK
Surgically or Chemically Aborting the Baby
  1. The act of aborting the baby is morally evil as taught infallibly by the Church. FAIL
  2. The intended effect could be the life of the mother. POSSIBLE FAIL
  3. The Good effect results from the evil act. FAIL
  4. The act results in the saving of one life over the death of two. OK
So, we see that removing the tube passes the test of double effect. While abortion fails on the very first point. While some errant theologians would contend that all that matters is point four, the Church has consistently taught that ALL points matter. It is helpful to note that virtually all “proportionalist” theologians use their theory to create moral justifications for abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, and pre-marital sex. Indeed, it becomes impossible to follow their logic and NOT justify practices which are clearly contrary to Christian ethics.

The key rule here is that One must never do something evil even if good may come of it. To allow for such a thing is to completely undermine the Christian concept of moral theology.
 
Try this one:
Taking medication in order to remedy a bulging tube by removing endometrial tissue that has passed into the fallopian tube.
  1. Taking medication to cause the body to trigger strong hormonal changes that will expel the lining of the uterus and any lining that may have passing into the fallopian tube. Morally neutral (just as morally neutral as removing the tube itself)
  2. The intended effect is to save the life of the mother and preserve her gift of fertility for future children, there is NO intent to harm any developing fetus or prevent conception.
  3. There is no evil act. It is a sorrow and a loss that the baby will not survive, but there would have been NO WAY for the baby to survive even if nothing was done.
  4. The act results in the saving of one life over the death of two.
    -D
 
I’m stupid when it comes to this subject. I know it doesn’t change the morality, but does removing the tube render the woman infertile?
 
there are 2 tubes… so as far as I know she would have a spare… dunno how that works though. I dont know if leaving one in would create complications…
 
40.png
Ham1:
  1. The act itself must be good or at least morally neutral.
  2. The good effect must be directly intended.
  3. The good effect must come from the act itself and not from the evil effect.
  4. The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion than the evil effect. (This is where the proportional “weighing” of the act comes in. Note that some “proportionalist” theologians hold that this is the ONLY point that matters in the moral analysis).
Click to expand...
The “act” in question is to remove what is going to kill the mother. That is a good thing. The “effect” saving her life is what is intended.
 
40.png
darcee:
Try this one:
Taking medication in order to remedy a bulging tube by removing endometrial tissue that has passed into the fallopian tube.
  1. Taking medication to cause the body to trigger strong hormonal changes that will expel the lining of the uterus and any lining that may have passing into the fallopian tube. Morally neutral (just as morally neutral as removing the tube itself)
  2. The intended effect is to save the life of the mother and preserve her gift of fertility for future children, there is NO intent to harm any developing fetus or prevent conception.
  3. There is no evil act. It is a sorrow and a loss that the baby will not survive, but there would have been NO WAY for the baby to survive even if nothing was done.
  4. The act results in the saving of one life over the death of two.
    -D
Click to expand...
Yes, I would argue that taking this medication would be morally permissible as you have described it. For similar reasons, one could make the case that a pregnant mother could undergoe chemotherapy even though it would mean the death of her child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top