Is abortion ever OK?

[Ham1]

Poisson:

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.

The acts in the two situations as I outlined above are:

1. Removal of a section of fallopian tube.
2. Removal of an unborn baby.

These are two distinct acts. One clearly is in accord with right reason and one is not.

 

[yochumjy]

darcee:

Try this one:

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 think I disagree with this, and here is why. I’ve been told by a doctor that if the child gets stuck in the tube it is actually a problem with the tube itself. Removing the tube (or a section of the tube) prevents the same thing from happening again. Second, why is preserving the gift of fertility more important than killing a child of God, or maybe allowing another ectopic pregnancy? The second thing to note here is that children have been taken from the tube and redeposited in the uterus. If I remember correctly there was a child that survived. At least there is a chance, even if the probability is low. I’ll admit that the procedure you describe is close to neutral, but I’m just not sure it is directly in the middle…

John

 

[Maggie]

Poisson:

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. 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.

Yeah, go to the Ask the Apologist Forum… there’s a thread there that explains it and gives resources. Saving the fertility of the mother becomes the primary goal and you know you are killing the child to do it… rather than removing the child intact… Think about it… it’s both die or you perform a procedure in which both may live, even though at this point in time we do not have the resources to save the child, you remove the child intact. It sounds like it is a fine line, but it is a real difference. In the first you kill the child deliberately to maintain the mother’s fertility, in the second you kill the child secondarily in saving the mother’s life, although neither would have lived had you done nothing.

 

[darcee]

yochumjy:

I think I disagree with this, and here is why. I’ve been told by a doctor that if the child gets stuck in the tube it is actually a problem with the tube itself. Removing the tube (or a section of the tube) prevents the same thing from happening again. Second, why is preserving the gift of fertility more important than killing a child of God, or maybe allowing another ectopic pregnancy?

The tube might have a problem or not, but sterilization even if it is to prevent the death of another child through an etopic pregnacy is objectivly wrong.

I don’t think there have been any success with the repositioning procedure.

I have an issue with the idea that removing the tube is ok surgical extraction of the blockage or oral medication is all wrong.

For instance let’s develop two situations.

Take a women who has had a prior ectopic pregnancy so one tube is missing… this is her only tube, her entire fertility we are talking about.

First situation:
Something has happened to a fallopian tube and caused a blockage that is swelling and in danger of bursting the tube.
Would it be ok to use a surgical procedure remove the blockage and save the mother’s life and the tube? Yes.

Now the second situation… part of the blockage is a developing baby. One that is doomed no matter what is done (with in existing medical technology). A baby is not in that tube by itself, there is other tissue that must be removed. ANY treatment done to remove any of the blockage will require as a side affect the removal of everything…including the developing child. It doesn’t matter if it is the whole tube or only the blockage that is removed since the intent is not to kill the child but remove the blockage.

The first point of the The Principle of Double Effect is that the action itself must be morally neutral. Surgical laparoscopy is NOT an abortion procedure. Methotrexate, while it is used for abortion, is also a cancer treatment drug and taking it for such a medicinal purpose would be licit. Both procedures are licit when their primary purpose it one of healing not one of taking life. They are not evil in and of themselves. This is where I think the argument that only a salpingectomy is morally acceptable falls flat. Removing the tube could also be seen as an attempt at steralization.

-D

 

[Pro_Iesu]

Abortion is not ok ever not even if one is raped incest etc.
Regarding the pregnancies that are abnormal Etopic pregnancy etc I think it depends on the situation and there are many new procedures going on so who knows maybeitsalready been cured? Any who since we are not experts in that field itd be best to stick to what we do know that abortion is in all cases wrong because its not the childs faultit has no control over its parents actions rem theblind man whom the pharisees thought his ailementwasduetothe sins of his parents etc. Now if we could get a Doc here I bet it’d help a bunch!

Peace n Gb

 

[Lorarose]

This is the first time I’ve heard anyone claim that an embryo has been successfully removed and implanted into the uterus.

That would most definitely be the way to go.
Does anyone have anymore information on this?

It would be very helpful for couples to know there could be a hopeful alternative!

 

[darcee]

I read about it earlier this week I will look for info on it. From what I read there were no successes yet.

If that was the case then it changes everything as there would be a chance to save both the mother and the baby.

-D

 

[yochumjy]

darcee:

The tube might have a problem or not, but sterilization even if it is to prevent the death of another child through an etopic pregnacy is objectivly wrong.

I disagree, sterilization is not the intent, it is the side effect. You can not use this to sterilize, but if you remove the tube to save the life, then sterilization is a side effect. Preventing the death of a child should be the FIRST priority. Having children is not a right, it is a gift from God. My wife and I are struggling with this now, so I’m not unsympathetic to the desire for children.

darcee:

I don’t think there have been any success with the repositioning procedure.

I’ll try to find this also, or ask the person who I “think” told me it worked once… But if there is even a slight chance, I think I’d want to try. God works miricles as He will, I’ll give him every chance.

darcee:

I have an issue with the idea that removing the tube is ok surgical extraction of the blockage or oral medication is all wrong.

For instance let’s develop two situations…

Take a women who has had a prior ectopic pregnancy so one tube is missing… this is her only tube, her entire fertility we are talking about.
…
Now the second situation… part of the blockage is a developing baby. One that is doomed no matter what is done (with in existing medical technology). A baby is not in that tube by itself, there is other tissue that must be removed. ANY treatment done to remove any of the blockage will require as a side affect the removal of everything…including the developing child. It doesn’t matter if it is the whole tube or only the blockage that is removed since the intent is not to kill the child but remove the blockage.

If the action is removing the blockage and the child is the blockage, then it seems to be an abortion to me and not covered under the principle of double effect. The intent can not be to remove the child, ever. And I’m sorry, but whether or not the woman can have children in the future is of no consequence when abortion is being spoken of.

Maybe I’m looking at this wrong, but I keep seeing removing the blockage as removing the child. If there was a blockage that was not the child, then I could see the drugs to remove the blockage. Maybe if there was a blockage that was not the child that would kill the mother in addition to the child. But since the blockage that you are “flushing” that will kill the mother is due to the child, I think your arguement falls apart.

On a side note, if a section of the falopian tube is removed (ie the known bad section) can that tube then be reconnected?

John

 

[yochumjy]

yochumjy:

I’ll try to find this also, or ask the person who I “think” told me it worked once… But if there is even a slight chance, I think I’d want to try. God works miricles as He will, I’ll give him every chance.

Hmmmm, I wonder if this is what the Doctor was talking about and if she knew about what happened next…

bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/author1.htm

If so, I stand corrected about this actually occuring before. I have yet to ask her directly.

John

 

[scaxter]

I recently asked this question to Judi Brown from the American Life League. She is one of the apologists on these forums. She said the Church has NEVER taught that abortion is okay in any circumstance.

I’m unsure of those trying to argue the case of an embryo in the fallipian tube by removing it, knowing, that proceedure is going to cause it’s death. Can a baby survive in the fallipian tube until it gets old enough to survive outside the mother? Should a mother wait until that point for the sake of her baby’s life, yes, knowing it’s a certain risk to her own life? Doesn’t the removal of the embryo just seem like you’re “dancing around the issue” of whether or not that’s an abortion? It would be good to get a firm and definite teaching from the Church on this matter. Go to an apologist to lead you in the right direction.

Also read the book about the mother who was a doctor by profession who was faced with a life/death situation in her own pregnancy. I believe the Pope has canonized her, due to her decision to save her baby’s life risking hers, unto her own death. I think her name is Galiani (or something like that). I will find out her name and the title of the book.

 

[Nicole]

I found this on exceptionalmarriages.com:

The Church teaches that “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder,” and is “intrinsically illicit.” One may not take an unborn baby’s life even as a means to the end of saving the mother’s life - even if the baby will die “anyway” (we will all die “anyway,” later if not sooner).

This does not, however, mean that basic virtue, or even sanctity, require a woman to forgo a life-saving procedure that would cause as a “side effect” the death of her unborn baby. She may avail herself of such a procedure - even if refusing it (and thus accepting her death) would save the baby (again, that is not the issue). In such cases, “double-effect reasoning” comes into play. Thus - for instance - suppose a woman is in the early stages of pregnancy, and is also diagnosed with uterine cancer. She is told that if she waits to have a hysterectomy until the baby is viable, the cancer will have become incurable. She may certainly have the operation. The choice to remove a cancerous organ is good in itself; the intention to save the woman’s life is good; the operation does not achieve this good effect by means of taking the baby’s life (after all, the operation would have its good effect even were the mother not pregnant) - the baby’s death is, rather, a “side effect”; the saving of the mother’s life is “proportionate” to the baby’s death.

Now, of course, the opposite choice could also be morally licit! (In fact, this is also explained - the choice is distinguished from suicide - by double-effect reasoning). If a mother’s death would result in the unborn baby’s death also, then I don’t see a reason to forgo measures that would save her life, even those that would have as a “side effect” the death of the baby. But if the baby could be saved, then it could certainly be in keeping with “heroic virtue,” and sanctity, for a mother to make the choice of which St. Gianna spoke.

But such a choice is not necessary for virtue and sanctity (and in some cases, might not even be prudent - depending on what other obligations to others the woman might have).

Nicole

 

[space_ghost]

Nope!

 

[Ham1]

You win…for shortest and most complete answer!

Seriously, this is one area where the Church has extremely nuanced and detailed teaching. Sadly, it seems that there are a great number of priests out there today who do not understand or believe in the concept of double effect. There are many who have fallen into the errors of proportionalism which is really just a form of moral relativism.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Lorarose:

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.

I tend to agree with you because I fall on the side that abortion, or ending the life of a fetus ON PURPOSE is always murder. To me, there is little difference between taking medication to get rid of the “problem” or removing the tube. I just hope and pray that I never find myself in that situation because I really don’t know what I would do.

 

[yochumjy]

MooCowSteph:

I tend to agree with you because I fall on the side that abortion, or ending the life of a fetus ON PURPOSE is always murder. To me, there is little difference between taking medication to get rid of the “problem” or removing the tube. I just hope and pray that I never find myself in that situation because I really don’t know what I would do.

Maybe I’m not helping here, but the tube is not necessarily “healthy”. If the fetus lodges in the tube then something was wrong, in fact the tube could be the problem. Since you can assume the tube has a flaw then the tube can be removed. The fact the the child is in the tube and gets removed with the tube is an unwanted, undesirable effect. This was hard for me to understand also, but the bottom line is you must always be treating the PROBLEM, and the child is NEVER the problem. Taking medication does not solve the problem, it is getting rid of a side effect of the problem (and a darned IMPORTANT ONE). If the tube is the problem and you don’t remove it, it can be a problem again, so you MUST get rid of the problem so that no child will have to die again.

It does seem like it could be a slippery slope, so one must always evaluate what you are doing/fixing. You must be correcting an imperfection in the body, and the child, while inside your body is NOT part of your body, so the child can never be the prime reason.

Does that make any more sense? Truly, I’m not sure I’m saying it right. SIGH

John

 

[Ham1]

It depends on what the medication is for and what conditions exist.

Assuming that there is some sort of blockage in addition to the child. It would be morally permissible to take medication that would flush this other material out of the tube. If the child was flushed out as well, this would be an unintended consequence. IF the medication were taken solely to flush out the child, that would be obviously be immoral.

 

[yochumjy]

Ham1:

It depends on what the medication is for and what conditions exist.

Assuming that there is some sort of blockage in addition to the child. It would be morally permissible to take medication that would flush this other material out of the tube. If the child was flushed out as well, this would be an unintended consequence. IF the medication were taken solely to flush out the child, that would be obviously be immoral.

I somewhat agree if the other blockage will kill the mother before the child would and if that is the only way to remove the blockage in question. I’m still a little wary on that one. If the child is also in the tube with the other blockage, there could still be possible future problems and in that case I think I’d still want to remove the tube (unless the original reason for the blockages was well understood and there was some GOOD probability it wouldn’t reaccur). If there is a blockage in the tube that is not the child, then flushing the blockage and killing the child in the womb would be wrong. I really believe you should be treating the real problem to the best your/our ability. I’m really having a hard time with the flushing being moral. Maybe I’m just being hard headed (likely), but if someone could fully spell out a real scenario with the blockage, maybe I could more fully understand how it could be morally licit.

For instance, could a blockage be there previous to the sperm fertilizing the egg, the sperm makes it past, but the egg can’t. If the original blockage was fully understood (ie caused by a specific medication that is no longer in use or something) and would not happen again (or maybe this is a case for future use of NFP to not have children while taking the medicine).

John

 

[martino]

There are two moral principles at play here, 1) we can NEVER do evil to bring about good, and 2) the principle of the double effect.

1. WE CAN NEVER TO EVIL TO BRING ABOUT GOOD, this simply means that the end does not justify the means. Abortion is intrinsically evil therefore there is no situation that would ever render it not evil.
2. PRINCIPLE OF THE DOUBLE EFFECT, this one is more complicated but a few others have already alluded to it. This principle states that an act that is good (or at least not evil), but that has an evil side effect, may be done only under the following conditions:
   1. the good must be willed. The evil must not be willed, but merely tolerated.
   2. the good must not be the result of the tolerated evil (the good is the direct result, the evil is the indirect result).
   3. the good desired must equal or outweigh the evil effect.
   4. there must be a proportionately serious reason to do the act.

Hopefully this will help clear things up for some people.

this information came from San Juan Seminars

 

[Ham1]

yochumjy:

I somewhat agree if the other blockage will kill the mother before the child would and if that is the only way to remove the blockage in question. I’m still a little wary on that one. If the child is also in the tube with the other blockage, there could still be possible future problems and in that case I think I’d still want to remove the tube (unless the original reason for the blockages was well understood and there was some GOOD probability it wouldn’t reaccur). If there is a blockage in the tube that is not the child, then flushing the blockage and killing the child in the womb would be wrong. I really believe you should be treating the real problem to the best your/our ability. I’m really having a hard time with the flushing being moral. Maybe I’m just being hard headed (likely), but if someone could fully spell out a real scenario with the blockage, maybe I could more fully understand how it could be morally licit.

For instance, could a blockage be there previous to the sperm fertilizing the egg, the sperm makes it past, but the egg can’t. If the original blockage was fully understood (ie caused by a specific medication that is no longer in use or something) and would not happen again (or maybe this is a case for future use of NFP to not have children while taking the medicine).

John

As has been said, any action would have to qualify under the principle of double effect.

 

[iguana27]

Does anyone know if ectopic pregnancies can result in a child coming to term by the child migrating into the uterus after the ectopic pregnancy has been diagnosed?

I know that a child cannot develop long enough in the fallopian tube to be viable outside the mother.