S
stina
Guest
I am incredibly pro-life, and was raised as such. However, I was once told that if a woman and her child will both die if the woman gives birth, then it is alright to abort to at least save the mother. Is this true?
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, it is wrong. To deliberately kill another is wrong. The ends do not justify the means.
But. . . if the situation is such that in treating the mother–or the child–the unintended effect will be that the ‘other’ will die–then, if the death occurs, it is not an abortion, and it is not morally wrong.
Picture the standard ectopic pregnancy. The fetus implants in a fallopian tube or the abdomen instead of the uterus, and starts to grow. It is too immature to survive even a ‘transplant’ to the uterus; yet if it continues to grow, the mother will die from the subsequent rupture and/or sepsis.
The ONLY treatment would be removal of the fallopian tube before it ruptures. . .or removal of the fetus from the abdomen before it ruptures. The intent is NOT to kill the child; the death results from the TREATMENT, the death is not ITSELF the treatment.
Now, if the mother were hemorrhaging, there could and would be many treatments that could be tried short of aborting the child (which would itself be more likely to increase the hemorrhage anyway). Same situation–mother’s life and child’s life in danger. . .if one or both die despite treatment it is certainly sad, but aborting the child ‘to save the mother’ is just not (despite its frequent use in cheesy movies and novels) something which often comes up, and always, the intent is if possible to preserve both lives, and for the death (of either) to be unintended and not the ‘primary’ cause.
But. . . if the situation is such that in treating the mother–or the child–the unintended effect will be that the ‘other’ will die–then, if the death occurs, it is not an abortion, and it is not morally wrong.
Picture the standard ectopic pregnancy. The fetus implants in a fallopian tube or the abdomen instead of the uterus, and starts to grow. It is too immature to survive even a ‘transplant’ to the uterus; yet if it continues to grow, the mother will die from the subsequent rupture and/or sepsis.
The ONLY treatment would be removal of the fallopian tube before it ruptures. . .or removal of the fetus from the abdomen before it ruptures. The intent is NOT to kill the child; the death results from the TREATMENT, the death is not ITSELF the treatment.
Now, if the mother were hemorrhaging, there could and would be many treatments that could be tried short of aborting the child (which would itself be more likely to increase the hemorrhage anyway). Same situation–mother’s life and child’s life in danger. . .if one or both die despite treatment it is certainly sad, but aborting the child ‘to save the mother’ is just not (despite its frequent use in cheesy movies and novels) something which often comes up, and always, the intent is if possible to preserve both lives, and for the death (of either) to be unintended and not the ‘primary’ cause.
J
jburgherr
Guest
Hi STina,
The is a bit of a “strawman” as this situation hardly ever occurs…especially in the US.
Ultimately, we trust in the Lord and the skill of the medical teams to save (hopefully) both the mother and the child.
The Church has been very clear and has always maintained that one can never perform an evil act in hope that good may come from it. Evil never begets good.
The is a bit of a “strawman” as this situation hardly ever occurs…especially in the US.
Ultimately, we trust in the Lord and the skill of the medical teams to save (hopefully) both the mother and the child.
The Church has been very clear and has always maintained that one can never perform an evil act in hope that good may come from it. Evil never begets good.
B
Bigwill
Guest
The appropriate action would be to deliver the baby and do everything possible to save the baby’s life. There is no situation in which the appropriate action is to intentionally kill the baby (abortion). It is amazing that there are actually people out there who try to fashion circumstances wherein one should want to kill a baby. (“Suppose that either you kill the baby or hte mother dies”–this sort of dichotomy completely ignores a moral option, delivering and trying to save the baby, even if the baby is being delivered months prematurely.)
S
stina
Guest
I really appreciate your response, but I am still a bit confused, Isn’t this an abortion. The point of a procedure such as this seems to be to kill the fetus.
L
Leopard
Guest
No, the point is not to kill the fetus. The point (that is the intended purpose) is to remove or repair a diseased or damaged organ, which if not removed or repaired, will result in the mother’s death. At this point in medical knowledge, the child’s death is an undesired, though unavoidable, side effect.
In the future with advances in medical knowledge it may be possible to save the lives of such children, possibly by transfering them safely into the mother’s uterus or through technology allowing the child to grow to term outside the mother’s body. If and when that happens, the undesired effect of the child’s death will no longer be unavoidable.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
We may be mixing science with intent from above “The ONLY treatment would be removal of the fallopian tube before it ruptures. . .or removal of the fetus from the abdomen before it ruptures.” From a science stand you may see this as an abortion, however such a definition fails to differentiate the objective. The Church has held the issue to depend on the objective.
Here is different example, if it helps, a person is found comatose and placed on a respirator. They never improve. Is the unplugging of the machine murder, homicide, killing, or was the person already dead? We may just be pumping air into a dead body? The removal of the machine is not killing because the ability to live was already gone. Same for the case above but in a different order, in the case above the ability to live was preserved by the action.
So in both case preservation of life was the objective
S
Seatuck
Guest
To understand the issue with ectopics please read the following.
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
1
1ke
Guest
No, this is not true.
As you have said, the ends never justify the means. There is no difference between a born baby and an unborn baby. It’s wrong to kill a born baby, it’s wrong to kill an unborn baby. Period.
I may not kill you to save myself-- whether you are born or unborn.
A doctor’s role in such a case is to do all he can to save both patients.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
My father was confronted with that situation and he told them to save both, and then he prayed. Medical science with the help of prayer was able to deliver me, and save my mother too.
Today, children are delivered using surgery in such cases, thus the situational ethics of this rarely raises its head today.
Today, children are delivered using surgery in such cases, thus the situational ethics of this rarely raises its head today.
R
rpp
Guest
No, an ectopic pregnancy is always fatal for the mother. It reaches the point of fatality far too early for the baby to be delivered prematurely. Finally, the intent of the surgery is the save the woman from **certain **death. Unfortunately, this means removing the developing baby.
I had a friend whose first two (and only, obviously) pregnancies were both ectopic. That meant she lost both her fallopian tubes, sterilizing her. The symptoms are so very similar to appendicitis that doctors always run a pregnancy test on women presenting appendicitis-like symptoms. There is severe abdominal pain and tenderness, nausea, sometimes a fever.
Perhaps someday medical technology will advance to the point where the developing child may be able to be implanted in the womb. Perhaps even the fertility of the woman may even be able to be preserved. When that happens, then taking the life of a child will become immoral if a doctor is able to perform the procedure. Likewise, reducing fertility, or in the case of my friend, sterilizing, the patient when it can be preserved would also be grave sin.
S
Sr_Sally
Guest
There are too many stories where a mother is told that her “only” choice is to abort the baby. Then after she refuses, it happens that she and the baby end up fine. One in particular was of a mother with a rupture in her diaphram. Her dr felt that the pregnancy would be too hard on her and she would die. What actually happened is the the growing baby, by compressing her diaphram, acted as a suture and the rupture healed! Of course, there are indeed also situations where the mother and or baby DO die, even after medical care other than an abortion. But we will all die–and we are not at all guarenteed a long healthy life and then a quick, painless death in our sleep.
S
sodak
Guest
Actually it is always fatal to both the mother and the baby. The only thing that can be done to save the mother’s life is to remove the fetus, unfortunately. This is not a rare occurance. It is also about the only time when I could think that an abortion is not only allowed, but the only moral choice. The other choice is to allow the mother and child both to die in excruciating pain.
J
JenniferMoon
Guest
This is true!
I know someone who had a uterine rupture & she refused to abort. Her daughter grew in mom’s abdominal cavity and was born healthy at full term.
J
JenniferMoon
Guest
dp sorry:blush:
L
leonie
Guest
My mom is a labor and delivery nurse. A lot of “gray area” dilemmas come up all the time.
For example, if a mother is going into toxemia–will die if she doesn’t deliver immediately, but the baby is too young to survive, is it abortion to induce labor/do a c section?
Of course the baby would die if the mother died.
You could say that it’s the baby’s only chance, I guess.
For example, if a mother is going into toxemia–will die if she doesn’t deliver immediately, but the baby is too young to survive, is it abortion to induce labor/do a c section?
Of course the baby would die if the mother died.
You could say that it’s the baby’s only chance, I guess.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If the intention is to kill the unborn child, it is abortion and not morally acceptable. If, however, the intent is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the child is seen as an undesired but unpreventable event, then it is neither abortion nor immoral.
A good parallel situation comes in end-of-life matters – for example, it is morally licit to provide pain killers to someone who is dying in agony (pancreatic cancer is an example) even if the dosage necessary actually shortens the person’s life.
- Status