Is abortion ever ok?

[MclaireL]

Is abortion ever ok? I heard somewhere that in cases where the mother’s life is in danger it’s ok, but I’m unsure of the validity of that.

 

[Boulder257]

No. We do not get the right to “play God” and decide who lives and who dies. It is up to the doctor to try and save both. If God chooses to take one or both, than His will be done. Catholic teaching makes it very clear, there is never an acceptable time to terminate the life of an unborn child, even if it means increasing the odds of another human being living.

I understand this can be difficult to accept, especially for those who have the unimaginable reality of facing such situations. I certainly have compassion for anyone who has had to suffer through such a situation.

 

[hannajomar]

To add to what MclaireL wrote, a fetus and a mother are two people. We can never choose to kill one innocent person for the sake of another innocent person. We are supposed to try to save the lives of both these people. If one or both of those people dies, we can say we did all we could. Sometimes in practice this might not look very different at all, or the difference might only occur in the doctor’s mind. But we cannot point to one person with the intention of killing them so that another person may live.

 

[runningdude]

Is abortion ever ok?

No.

 

[Andrew1980]

Is abortion ever ok? I heard somewhere that in cases where the mother’s life is in danger it’s ok, but I’m unsure of the validity of that.

The discrepancy may be caused by the teaching that the church allows for operations for the health of the mother that may cause the death of the fetus. This is acceptable, but it is not acceptable to intentionally abort the child. If indirect death occurs, it is not considered wrong in the churches eyes. The goal should be to save both the mother and child.

“Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.” - USCCB.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Is abortion ever ok? I heard somewhere that in cases where the mother’s life is in danger it’s ok, but I’m unsure of the validity of that.

Nope. That was the “nose of the camel” that got abortion during all 9 mos. of pregnancy passed…and promptly turned into, if the mother is upset about the pregnancy, then her life could be in danger (suicide I guess).

The doctor can try to save the life of the baby and the mother, knowing that it is more than likely that the baby will not make it, but he cannot EVER intentionally kill that baby or do anything directly to kill it. Doing so is a mortal sin because it’s murder.

 

[1_with_God]

No, it is never okay.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Some of the confusion lies in the way people tend to define things. Depending on who we’re speaking to at a given time ; the same terms aren’t always used when describing similar situations.

I think hannajomar has summed it up nicely in a way which avoids that confusion :

hannajomar:

To add to what MclaireL wrote, a fetus and a mother are two people. We can never choose to kill one innocent person for the sake of another innocent person. We are supposed to try to save the lives of both these people. If one or both of those people dies, we can say we did all we could. Sometimes in practice this might not look very different at all, or the difference might only occur in the doctor’s mind. But we cannot point to one person with the intention of killing them so that another person may live.

What is permissible, is what Fr. John Hardon S.J. calls, in his Modern Catholic Dictionary *indirect abortion *- as opposed to direct abortion. This may be morally permissible when the principle of double effect applies. Usually 4 criteria are used to judge individual cases concerning the principle of double effect.

Definitions From : MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY ; Fr. Jon Hardon, S.J.

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.)

DOUBLE EFFECT. The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions: 1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences; 2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good; 3. the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded from the act; 4. there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent. All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong . . .

 

[JGMendes4049]

Absolutely never, ever, in any circumstance, no matter what, is intentionally terminating a pregnancy ever okay or justified. Period.