Is it ever okay to have an abortion?

[KarenNC]

I’m not sure what brought that up (perhaps I missed a post), but Catholic Catachism attempts to explain intent. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry:

newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm

Making a distinction like you describe is essential to adopt, say, an Augustine concept of Just War, but the centrality of the human person and his (or her) fundemental rights from God is an extremely important concept in our Faith, not to be abridged lightly.

When I read through the list, I saw one post that quoted the commandment as “thou shalt not kill.” Perhaps it was edited after I read it.

Yes, the distinction is incredibly important and not to be abridged lightly. In fact, I would say that it is so important that the use of euphemisms to pretend one is not, in fact, deliberately ending a life is to minimize the importance of it and the gravity of the decision.

Did anyone here imply otherwise?

That would be your post, number #38:
"since the fetus’ prognosis is less than 6 months of life "

Yes, that sounds dangerously stupid. But I have not seen that proposed. My daughter elected to wait and see rather than accept, to her, the sin of direct abortion. There were no dillusions about the risks or the probable outcomes. It was an act of faith and she was willing to accept serious consequences.

I appreciate that your daughter did what she believed was necessary and I am glad that it turned out well for her. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies do, indeed, self-resolve through spontaneous abortion. When one talks endlessly about “removing the tube but not intending the death of the fetus,” however, I find it hard to swallow. I find it very difficult to see how a policy that insists on a more invasive and more dangerous option than is absolutely necessary rather than following the ethic of doing the least harm possible is one that is truly honoring the sacredness of life rather than the sacredness of avoiding the use of a word. To my eyes, that is nothing more than absurd legalism.

One can disagree, but to assert that one’s own moral decisions are inherently superior to anothers is a form of hubris normally rejected in Christianity.

Actually that is the entire basis of Christianity. If you did not believe that the moral decisions of Christians were inherently superior to the moral decisions of others, why in the world would you bother to differentiate between religions or between religion and non-religion?

I don’t recall anyone equating them, but if that is another straw man you feel compelled to knock down, be my guest.

Post #1
“If a mother is four months into a pregnancy and complications arrise, may a child be killed so at least she survives rather than both people dying?”

Post #9
"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.

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section. "

An “early delivery” that occurs before the possibility of viablity (and the very extreme edge of that is after 21 weeks) is simply another euphemism for abortion.

Alas, that is factually inaccurate. The majority of ectopic pregnancies in the US now occur in relationship to variations of PID and fertility treatments, both of which have their own moral implications. But without judgement, it does leave us with a situation where the NIH places the incidence now at somewhere between 1:40 and 1:100 pregnancies, and accounting for 9% of all pregnancy related maternal deaths in the US.

The overwhelming majority of those deaths (about 1 for every 100,000 live births) were unexpected pregnancies. Given that there is a possibility of death and sterility and the treatment is an abortion, it seems like it would be prudent to use family planning rather one is in the Sacrament of Marriage or not. In a family planning situation (natural or otherwise) pegnancies are generally looked for. Early detection of pregnancy also affords an opportunity for early detection of an ectopic pregnancy. This gives more time for consideration and more options than an emergency room.

cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/173/8/905.pdf
“However, more than half of identified ectopic pregnancies are in women without known risk factors.”

emedicine.com/med/topic3212.htm
"…however, most patients presenting with an ectopic pregnancy have no identifiable risk factor. "

Ectopic pregnancies do not only occur in unplanned pregnancies or ones that are “inconvenient”. Certainly it is advisable to have earlier detection and more options, but, the fact of the matter is that none of those options involve the survival of the child, no matter how early the detection.

I am all for family planning and deliberate, intended procreation. I fimly believe that no-one has any business engaging in sexual intercourse until and unless they are both adults in a committed monogamous relationship and both financially and emotionally ready to accept the possible consequences of their actions (all birth control methods other than complete abstinence have a failure rate, even when used optimally).

Abortion is always and without exception a tragic decision that results in the loss of a human life. One of the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse is, indeed, the possibility that one will have to face making the decision to have an abortion if one is faced with an ectopic pregnancy or a pregnancy that becomes deadly for the mother. It isn’t planned, desired, sought after or a matter of convenience, but it is there and one might as well face up to the responsibility of making the best choice possible in a tragic situation rather than use euphemisms or word games to pretend that one is not doing what one is doing.

 

[SoCalRC]

That would be your post, number #38:
"since the fetus’ prognosis is less than 6 months of life "

That would be #28, and it is difficult to see how you are connecting that to your statement. In context I said:

“When the Church did weigh in several moralists theorized that ectopic pregnancies would be exempt, since the fetus’ prognosis is less than 6 months of life and the possibility of death of the mother was, at the time, extremely high (25-50%). So again, notice in the entry that the Church was asked about premature extraction without injury. The answer was…”

I was reporting a piece of Church history. You can review it yourself. The question was submitted to the Tribunal of the Holy Office, which answered on March 20, 1902.

I find it very difficult to see how a policy that insists on a more invasive and more dangerous option than is absolutely necessary rather than following the ethic of doing the least harm possible is one that is truly honoring the sacredness of life rather than the sacredness of avoiding the use of a word. To my eyes, that is nothing more than absurd legalism.

Since my position has been that the alledged distinction between salpingostomy and salpingectomy is pure sophistry for some years, a position I have repeated expressed on this forums (including this thread), it is hard for me to disagree.

But the distinction is largely just an ancient bioethics class myth at this point. If you examine the materials from CHA, or articles from the Catholic Commitee on Bioethics you will find that all three common treatments are now in widespread use in Catholic hospitals.

Actually that is the entire basis of Christianity. If you did not believe that the moral decisions of Christians were inherently superior to the moral decisions of others, why in the world would you bother to differentiate between religions or between religion and non-religion?

In Catholic Mass we are all made equal by our unworthyness. Truly, no one present is worthy to receive the Lord, but we are all welcome at God’s table. We ask for Peace and Unity and immediately receive it, albiet for just a few moments.

Tearing down the artificial barriers and systems of oppression we construct is just one aspect. We are also called to a life of service, the complete committment to our fellow human beings.

Self rightousness, moral smugness, and passing moral judgement on others are all repeatedly condemned in the Gospels.

Other Christian faiths have embraced salvation solely through Christ, but He himself made no such promise. He was asked about salvation multiple times and the answer was always the same. People who think that Church membership alone leads to God’s grace would do well to read these verses.

emedicine.com/med/topic3212.htm
"…however, most patients presenting with an ectopic pregnancy have no identifiable risk factor. "

I notice that you truncated the quote, which started:

“The most logical explanation for the increasing frequency of ectopic pregnancy is previous pelvic infection; however…”

The quote becomes even clearer if you read the following paragraph which relates chlamydia trachomatis to PID (which the CDC now attributes, on the basis of multiple studies, as the most likely cause of the rapid increase in ectopic pregnancies over the last 20 years):

“More than 50% of women who have been infected are unaware of the exposure.”

Since they don’t know they’ve been exposed, they don’t know they are at risk.

While I find your apparent anger inexplicable, I am still happy to discuss the medical science involved. It is a subject I have followed closely for a number of years.

 

[KarenNC]

That would be #28, and it is difficult to see how you are connecting that to your statement. In context I said:

“When the Church did weigh in several moralists theorized that ectopic pregnancies would be exempt, since the fetus’ prognosis is less than 6 months of life and the possibility of death of the mother was, at the time, extremely high (25-50%). So again, notice in the entry that the Church was asked about premature extraction without injury. The answer was…”

I was reporting a piece of Church history. You can review it yourself. The question was submitted to the Tribunal of the Holy Office, which answered on March 20, 1902.

I was pointing out that one cannot read such to mean that an ectopic pregnancy could be realistically expected to progress to the point of even the barest possible limits of viability. This has been a misunderstanding that has come up repeatedly in other threads on this subject and, for someone who is not terribly familiar with the issue, can seem a viable argument against abortion in such a case. The absolute barest minimum gestational age to even consider a slim chance of viability is not until 22 weeks, and then it is very dependent on birth weight and other factors.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gGENH/is_all/ai_2699003636

Since my position has been that the alledged distinction between salpingostomy and salpingectomy is pure sophistry for some years, a position I have repeated expressed on this forums (including this thread), it is hard for me to disagree.

Good, because I was agreeing with you. I was not responding only to your post but to several throughout the list, as I came in late.

But the distinction is largely just an ancient bioethics class myth at this point. If you examine the materials from CHA, or articles from the Catholic Commitee on Bioethics you will find that all three common treatments are now in widespread use in Catholic hospitals.

It may well be “an ancient bioethics class myth” among medical professionals, but it is extremely alive and well among the minds of many of the folks on this forum and in the Catholic Church. It is far from a “done deal” in terms of the Church, either among clergy or laity, as you and your daughter discovered.

cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
uffl.org/vol12/bowring12.pdf

Self rightousness, moral smugness, and passing moral judgement on others are all repeatedly condemned in the Gospels.

I find it hard to understand why you would ascribe these things to me when I am doing no more than pointing out inaccuracies and agreeing with much of your position. As to whether I believe saying that something is what it is and that one should be willing to take responsibility for what one actually does rather than try to make it appear something else through the use of euphemisms is a superior moral action, then, yes, I have to admit that I do indeed believe it is better and more moral to face the truth.

I am pretty sure that honesty, taking responsibility for one’s actions and valuing honoring the spirit of the commandments rather than engaging in legalism was included in the Gospels as well.

Other Christian faiths have embraced salvation solely through Christ, but He himself made no such promise. He was asked about salvation multiple times and the answer was always the same. People who think that Church membership alone leads to God’s grace would do well to read these verses.

Not sure what that has to do with the question or discussion at hand.

I notice that you truncated the quote, which started:

“The most logical explanation for the increasing frequency of ectopic pregnancy is previous pelvic infection; however…”

The quote becomes even clearer if you read the following paragraph which relates chlamydia trachomatis to PID (which the CDC now attributes, on the basis of multiple studies, as the most likely cause of the rapid increase in ectopic pregnancies over the last 20 years):

“More than 50% of women who have been infected are unaware of the exposure.”

Since they don’t know they’ve been exposed, they don’t know they are at risk.

Yes, it becomes clearer when one continues to read the part that says “most patients presenting with an ectopic pregnancy have no identifiable risk factor.” Whether chlamydia is the most logical cause or not does not change the end of the statement.

If a woman does not know she has been exposed and does not know that she is at risk, how in the world is she then supposed to “plan” so that she doesn’t get an ectopic pregnancy? For that matter, how, other than never having sex, is a woman who knows she has a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy going to “plan” to avoid it? It is not something that is avoidable. The best one can do is to be aware that one is at risk and monitor oneself and seek early treatment, ie an early end to the pregnancy if it is indeed ectopic, in order to prevent death.

While I find your apparent anger inexplicable, I am still happy to discuss the medical science involved. It is a subject I have followed closely for a number of years.

I find it hard to understand why you believe that I am angry. It is not anger to present accurate information or to challenge information that can lead to inaccurate impressions. It’s usually called discussion.

 

[SoCalRC]

II find it hard to understand why you would ascribe these things to me…

I ascribed nothing to you. I was responding to the assertion that moral superiority is the foundation of Christianity. It is a foundation in some self described Christian faiths, but not in Catholicism.

If a woman does not know she has been exposed and does not know that she is at risk, how in the world is she then supposed to “plan” so that she doesn’t get an ectopic pregnancy?

The same way one would conduct family planning in general. Are you really asserting that family planning methods (including natural family planning) have no discernable outcome on pregnancy rates?

The principle is that women would do well to avoid unexpected pregnancies. The risk does not become zero, but it is mitigated. I bring this up because it is any area where many Catholics appear to mismanage risk and inconsistantly apply Church teachings.

I find it hard to understand why you believe that I am angry. It is not anger to present accurate information or to challenge information that can lead to inaccurate impressions. It’s usually called discussion.

I said ‘seemingly’, and based it on your choice of words and presentation. For example, you started a post “a few corrections of fact”, but failed to note that most of the material you presented had already been injected by others. By not putting your statements in the context of the existing thread, you inherently chose the format of ‘lecture’, not ‘discussion’.

Yet, the two seemingly new introductions to the conversation, causality and risk and the fundemental nature of Christianity are, I believe, highly debatable and perfect for discussion.

 

[KarenNC]

I ascribed nothing to you. I was responding to the assertion that moral superiority is the foundation of Christianity. It is a foundation in some self described Christian faiths, but not in Catholicism.

If you do not feel that Christianity is morally superior to any other religion or viewpoint, then I have to admit that I am at a loss as to why you would then consider that Christian teaching, much less specifically Catholic teaching as a subset of that, should carry any greater weight than the opinion or teaching of anyone else.

The same way one would conduct family planning in general. Are you really asserting that family planning methods (including natural family planning) have no discernable outcome on pregnancy rates?

The question of whether treating an ectopic pregnancy is or is not an abortion has absolutely nothing to do with pregnancy rates.

The principle is that women would do well to avoid unexpected pregnancies. The risk does not become zero, but it is mitigated. I bring this up because it is any area where many Catholics appear to mismanage risk and inconsistantly apply Church teachings.

Ok, I am with you that a planned pregnancy is preferable to an unplanned one. The risk of an ectopic pregnancy vs. a normal one has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the pregnancy was planned. The risk to the mother in detecting a possible ectopic pregnancy earlier because she knew she was trying to get pregnant is certainly theoretically less. It doesn’t change the issue of whether or not ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion regardless of the method used.

Yet, the two seemingly new introductions to the conversation, causality and risk and the fundemental nature of Christianity are, I believe, highly debatable and perfect for discussion.

The fundamental nature of Christianity is another thread.

The topic of risk and causality began with post 37 with Tim Kirchoff. BTW, he is the one who also introduced the “thou shalt not kill” in post 41 (I knew I had seen it).

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

In earlier posts I was trying to lead toward the conclusion that abortion is wrong.

Very generally, I am upset by the state of society, especially in terms of sexuality, and especially among the youth of the modern era. My posts may have been a reflection of this, and some arguments are responses more to their assertions than to those views posted on this thread.

And I also differentiate between “kill” and “murder”. There is a differnce between a procedure where, in an attempt to save the mother, the fetus is incidentally killed, and a procedure where the fetus itself is the objective.

I think I may have just either misinterpreted what you are all saying yet again, or just gone completely off-topic:shrug: