Is abortion justifiable if the woman's complications are likely fatal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SFV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SFV

Guest
(If you are pro-choice, please refrain from making any comments on this post. Thanks in advance!)

Is it morally wrong to have an abortion if the woman has a likely chance at death due to preexisting or new conditions?

(This post is out of pure curiosity)
 
Last edited:
There is not a circumstance in which abortion is permitted. Full stop.

A medically necessary procedure for the mother, which as a consequence results in the loss of the child’s life, is sorrowful but permissible under some circumstances (but which really, really need a priest involved!)
 
You and your spouse have 4 young children youngest is 2 yrs old and are about to have the 5th - the doctor tells you the mother will die of complications if she has the baby - what do you do? Remember this is your life and your family.

Not a simple choice.
 
BT3241 said:
You and your spouse have 4 young children youngest is 2 yrs old and are about to have the 5th - the doctor tells you the mother will die of complications if she has the baby - what do you do? Remember this is your life and your family.

Not a simple choice.
Click to expand...
Lots of choices aren’t. In certain cases medical treatment is allowed where a regrettable and undesirable but foreseeable consequence is the death of the unborn - IF without the treatment BOTH mother and child would certainly die. A commonly used example is removal of a fallopian tube where an egg has implanted in cases of ectopic pregnancy.
 
BT3241 said:
You and your spouse have 4 young children youngest is 2 yrs old and are about to have the 5th - the doctor tells you the mother will die of complications if she has the baby - what do you do? Remember this is your life and your family.

Not a simple choice.
Click to expand...
First of all, doctors cannot tell you for sure that the mother will die. They simply do not know. If there is a situation that is a clear and present danger to the mother’s life, the baby can be delivered early by cesarean or induced labor, even if it has to happen at a time when the baby is unlikely to survive due to lack of maturity. Everything would then be done to save the life of the premature infant.
 
Last edited:
Saint Gianna Molla was in this exact situation. It is a beautiful story. The baby is also a part of the family. The church clearly gave her the ability to remove her uterus and save her life while the unborn child would certainly lose her’s. She chose the least invasive way to hopefully save both her life and her unborn child. Unfortunately Gianna lost her life due to an infection, but the baby survived and the family facing an unbelievable sorrow survived because of their faith and the grace of God. The daughter became a doctor just like her mother.

 
Last edited:
One last thought, if one of our children was in danger; such as being hit by an oncoming car, wouldn’t we do anything to save him even at the chance of losing our own life. How can this is be any different than saving the life of my unborn child?
 
Last edited:
If the feared life threatening event occurs, for example the doctors feel she is at high risk of preeclampsia, which then does develop in the eighth month, early delivery by induction or C section is permitted. Killing the child is not necessary. Many women are able to manage high risk pregnancies, and early delivery is often necessary, but abortion takes the added immoral step of assuring death of the child. Sometimes a child dies due to being delivered too early but the effort is made to save both mother and child.

As already mentioned, an ectopic pregnancy is very dangerous. In this case the fallopian tube contaning the embryo may be removed,. This permits the child to be delivered intact, though it will die as it is not mature enough to survive. It has no chance of survival regardless of steps taken, and continuation of the pregnancy creates immediate risk of death to the mother.
 
Last edited:
BT3241 said:
  • the doctor tells you the mother will die of complications if she has the baby - what do you do?
Click to expand...
A) the doctor does not and cannot know this.

B) the doctor has two patients in this case. He may kill neither of them. What he can do is give legitimate medical assistance to the mother.
 
BT3241 said:
Not a simple choice.
Click to expand...
Well it is a simple choice when you understand you can never do evil even in the pursuit of good. You pursue legitimate medical interventions and care for both patients.
 
SFV said:
(If you are pro-choice, please refrain from making any comments on this post. Thanks in advance!)

Is it morally wrong to have an abortion if the woman has a likely chance at death due to preexisting or new conditions?

(This post is out of pure curiosity)
Click to expand...
Yes, it is still morally wrong to have an abortion under these circumstances.

An abortion happens when the doctor deliberately kills the baby when the mother’s life is NOT ACTIVELY in danger.

Having an abortion, based on one of these scenarios, is equivalent to sentencing a person to death or jail because the police heard there is a x% chance the person will murder someone.

We don’t arrest people because we hear they might murder someone. Instead, we watch them more closely and act to protect the person if/when their live is ACTIVELY in danger.

When lives are POTENTIALLY in danger, we simply monitor. We increase surveillance and even move the person closer to the people who can save her life if she becomes actively in danger.

SO, if the police will not arrest a man whom they hear possess a 20% threat to kill a women, why is it OK for mom to murder her baby because her pregnancy poses a 20% threat to her?

Heck, even if the threat was 80%, they are not going to arrest the man. So why does mom get to kill her baby for even a minuscule threat?

NOTE: a lot of people don’t understand that the Church is OK with an emergency C-Section when the mother’s life is ACTIVELY in danger, even if that means the child might die due to not being viable. In such a situation, a premature child can be quickly baptized before he/she passes away PEACEFULLY. This is far better than the child being ripped apart, VIOLENTLY & PAINFULLY by an abortion.

I hope this help.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
It depends on how you define “abortion.” If the life of the mother is seriously threatened, it is morally justifiable to take whatever steps are necessary to treat the mother, even if the expected result is the death of the baby. This is technically not an abortion. The death of the baby is an unintended consequence of the treatment of the mother. But if the “treatment” is directly primarily on causing the death of the baby, either by mechanical means or by chemical means, and if it is through that death of the baby that the mother’s life is saved, that is immoral. The case of ectopic pregnancies has already been mentioned and explained. In other cases it may be harder to tell if it is an abortion or not. I do not claim it is an easy determination. But the guiding principle is that if the good to be accomplished is wholly dependent on the success of the evil means, that is not permitted. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, although it is not technical possible right now, it is theoretically possible that the baby could be kept alive after removal. The death of the baby is not the means by which the mother’s live is saved. The removal of the diseased tube is the means. But when chemicals are given to kill the baby which then saves the mother’s life, then the death of the baby is the means by which the mother’s life is saved, and so it not allowed.
 
Last edited:
BT3241 said:
You and your spouse have 4 young children youngest is 2 yrs old and are about to have the 5th - the doctor tells you the mother will die of complications if she has the baby - what do you do? Remember this is your life and your family.

Not a simple choice.
Click to expand...
The choice seems pretty simple to me.

Do whatever will save the most lives.

Saving two lives is better than saving one.
Saving one life is better than saving none.

If the loss of one life is absolutely unavoidable then it seems to me that nobody is deciding to take a life.
 
…sadly, the vast majority of abortions have NOTHING to do with saving the life of mother, or rape pregnancy, or terminal illness.

Most abortions are about deadbeat dads and color TV’s and new cars and casual sex.
 
I’d like to know, as well. @BT3241 are you able to come up with a more specific scenario?

Medicine is rarely black and white. In some ways, life would be a lot easier if it were . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top