Is it licit to deliver a baby with no chance of survival to save a mother's life?

[DL82]

I know the Church teaches that abortion is ALWAYS wrong. I accept and agree with this.

If a pregnant woman’s chances of surviving pregnancy (and thus her child’s chances of survival) are nil, would it be licit to deliver a baby before 20 weeks, when it stands no chance of survival outside the womb, in order to save the mother’s life, provided the baby was delivered whole, not cut up as in an abortion?

Would this (as with tubal ligation) be covered by the doctrine of double effect, the intention would be to deliver the baby before the mother’s womb became an inhospitable environment (as it would be if she died), but the foreseen but not intended effect is that the child (probably) dies outside the womb.

 

[catharina]

I know the Church teaches that abortion is ALWAYS wrong. I accept and agree with this.

If a pregnant woman’s chances of surviving pregnancy (and thus her child’s chances of survival) are nil, would it be licit to deliver a baby before 20 weeks, when it stands no chance of survival outside the womb, in order to save the mother’s life, provided the baby was delivered whole, not cut up as in an abortion?

Would this (as with tubal ligation) be covered by the doctrine of double effect, the intention would be to deliver the baby before the mother’s womb became an inhospitable environment (as it would be if she died), but the foreseen but not intended effect is that the child (probably) dies outside the womb.

What you are describing is an abortion.
Many babies are delivered “whole, not cut up” in abortion procedures.

 

[DL82]

What you are describing is an abortion.
Many babies are delivered “whole, not cut up” in abortion procedures.

Fair enough, that’s a straight answer. That’s me told.

 

[Corki]

I know the Church teaches that abortion is ALWAYS wrong. I accept and agree with this.

If a pregnant woman’s chances of surviving pregnancy (and thus her child’s chances of survival) are nil, would it be licit to deliver a baby before 20 weeks, when it stands no chance of survival outside the womb, in order to save the mother’s life, provided the baby was delivered whole, not cut up as in an abortion?

Would this (as with tubal ligation) be covered by the doctrine of double effect, the intention would be to deliver the baby before the mother’s womb became an inhospitable environment (as it would be if she died), but the foreseen but not intended effect is that the child (probably) dies outside the womb.

First of all, tubal ligation done with the intent to prevent further pregnancy is NOT covered under the doctrine of double effect. If a tube is cut or removed to treat the immediate threat to the mother’s life of a current tubal pregnancy, that would be double effect.

Second, the situation you are describing would not be licit. A Catholic hospital, I think it was in Alaska, recently got in hot water with the Bishop for this very procedure (early induction). The moral course of action would be to try to hold off until viability is possible and then deliver the baby. If the mother had a medical emergency and needed immediate surgery, the surgery could be done on the mother even knowing the baby might not or even probably not survive.

 

[Bluegoat]

I know the Church teaches that abortion is ALWAYS wrong. I accept and agree with this.

If a pregnant woman’s chances of surviving pregnancy (and thus her child’s chances of survival) are nil, would it be licit to deliver a baby before 20 weeks, when it stands no chance of survival outside the womb, in order to save the mother’s life, provided the baby was delivered whole, not cut up as in an abortion?

Would this (as with tubal ligation) be covered by the doctrine of double effect, the intention would be to deliver the baby before the mother’s womb became an inhospitable environment (as it would be if she died), but the foreseen but not intended effect is that the child (probably) dies outside the womb.

If the mother’s life is in immanent danger, the baby could be delivered early, but not directly killed and then delivered or removed. The purpose would be to stop the process that was hurting the mother, not to kill the baby.

I think maybe in the second scenario you are thinking of an ectopic pregnancy rather than a tubal ligation, where the baby is growing in the tube. Of course this endangers the mom, and the church allows for the removal of the tube to save the mom, which also means the embryo won’t survive. They don’t allow the use of a drug to flush the embryo out, though the result is the same for the embryo but better for the mom, because the argument is that this is directly attacking the embryo. (Of course, in any scenario at the moment, the embryo dies, since a tubal pregnancy is not viable.)

I have to say that while I find the principles generally good ones, there is something about the way they are applied that is wrong here. I find the Orthodox response to such problems more reasonable - in a case where the mother’s life is somehow pitted against the babies, it must be approached as if two lives of equal value were having to be decided upon - and to choose to give up one’s own life for another is a very holy thing.

 

[catharina]

If the mother’s life is in immanent danger, the baby could be delivered early, but not directly killed and then delivered or removed. The purpose would be to stop the process that was hurting the mother, not to kill the baby.

I think maybe in the second scenario you are thinking of an ectopic pregnancy rather than a tubal ligation, where the baby is growing in the tube. Of course this endangers the mom, and the church allows for the removal of the tube to save the mom, which also means the embryo won’t survive. They don’t allow the use of a drug to flush the embryo out, though the result is the same for the embryo but better for the mom, because the argument is that this is directly attacking the embryo. (Of course, in any scenario at the moment, the embryo dies, since a tubal pregnancy is not viable.)

Yes. Any procedure undertaken to cause the death of the baby is unlawful and immoral.

 

[kage_ar]

If the mother’s life is in immanent danger, the baby could be delivered early, but not directly killed and then delivered or removed. The purpose would be to stop the process that was hurting the mother, not to kill the baby.

.

This allows the baby, a person, to be treated with respect and honor, to be baptized, to be loved and cared for - should they live one day or 10,000 days after that delivery.

 

[catharina]

from Catholic Cuture site:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3362&CFID=10643201&CFTOKEN=26130755

"The Church was also, and at all times, concerned about the woman’s spiritual welfare. Since it regarded abortion as a grave sin, it believed that it posed a serious danger to the woman’s immortal soul. Naturally, it wanted to discourage women from having an abortion since it regarded this violation of the commandment to love one’s neighbor as a form of spiritual suicide.

Abortion Violates The Law Of Love

In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas dealt with the question of whether it is permissible to section the uterus of a pregnant woman if this is the only way to baptize the fetus that is in danger of dying. The argument in favor of doing this is that the eternal life of the fetus is more important than the temporal life of its mother. Aquinas refuses to allow this and quotes St. Paul (Rom. 3:8) who says: “We should not do evil that there may come good.” It is an impermissible evil, according to Aquinas, to impose direct physical harm on a pregnant woman (in all probability causing her death) even when the good that is intended—the eternal salvation of the fetus—might be construed in a particularly theological sense to be a greater good than continuing the temporal life of the mother.29 Aquinas does not believe that an unbaptized fetus is necessarily deprived of salvation; but the logic of his argument reveals his conviction that even if the fetus stood to suffer a greater loss than the loss of its mother’s temporal life, the mother’s right to be protected from assault remains inviolable.

The three-century theological discussion between 1450-1750 centered on whether a woman ever had a right to abort. The factor that sustained the discussion was a genuine and abiding concern that, in certain circumstances, continued pregnancy would endanger a woman’s health, marriage, or reputation. No exception was found that would permit direct abortion, however, because no exception could be found that did not logically extend to other exceptions that were not prudent to make or failed to uphold the principle that all innocent human life warrants equal protection. But the debate continued in an effort to protect the pregnant woman as much as possible without violating more general principles that protected everyone."

…

"The Church has always upheld the principle that all innocent human life is deserving of protection. In trying to find exceptions to the abortion prohibition in the interest of providing better care for the pregnant woman, the Church never treated one form of human life as more important than another. Pope Pius XII makes this point clear when he states:

Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.33"