Is there ever a circumstance under which abortion would be justified?

[Vincent1560]

Out of curiosity Martino what do you think about the scenario I described earlier (quoted for your convenience below) This seems like a case where the moral thing to do is intentionally kill an innocent life. If this is true why would it be permissible in this case and not the ectopic pregnancy case? I am not saying it is, I am still greatly struggeling with this issue. It is like the old moral riddle of three men in a sinking boat that can only hold two.

Vincent1560:

In certain cases of conjoined twins only one set of vital organs is present. If one twin is not killed, both will die. This would have to be a direct killing since you would need to directly sever one baby from its heart and other vital organs inorder to save the other. In this case is it moral to directly end an innocent life inorder to save another innocent life, if both would die if nothing was done. For argument’s sake lets say there is no medical way to determine which child should be killed (i.e. both would have an equal chance of surviving the procedure if they were elected to get the shared organs)

 

[martino]

Vincent1560:

Out of curiosity Martino what do you think about the scenario I described earlier (quoted for your convenience below) This seems like a case where the moral thing to do is intentionally kill an innocent life. If this is true why would it be permissible in this case and not the ectopic pregnancy case? I am not saying it is, I am still greatly struggeling with this issue. It is like the old moral riddle of three men in a sinking boat that can only hold two.

One thing I know for sure is that the same moral principle would apply: that we cannot ever intentionally kill one innocent person to save the life of another.

I do not claim to be a moral theologian but I think if we look at this case in light of the principle of the double effect we may be able to come to a morally sound conclusion.

The principle of the “double effect” says that it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least 2 effects, one good and one bad as long as the following conditions apply:

1. the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally neutral.
2. the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil (bad) must be an unwanted side effect.
3. the evil or bad effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted.
4. there must be a proportionately good reason to allow the bad effect. The good and bad effect must be nearly equivolent.

If any of the 4 conditions are not present then the act would be considered immoral…this is according to Catholic teaching.

Again i am no expert but i will try to apply this principle to the scenario you gave me as best i can. I think we have conditions 1 & 4 covered because the act, which is toto separate conjoined twins would be considered a good act because you stated both would die if they were not separated and because the good and bad effects are equal, one of them is saved and the other is not.

I am not as certain about conditions 2 & 3. Is the good effect (saving one) the direct result of the bad effect (death of the other)? Is the death of one (bad effect) actually intended or merely tolerated?

As I see it these are the two questions that would need to be answered before we could come to a conclusion. I would love to know what the answers are but I am not qualified to answer them. For one, I dont have the deep understanding of the principle involved that would be necessary in such a complicated case nor do I fully understand the medical procedure that would be involved.

I hope this helps you in some way.

 

[Della]

Riley259:

Is this true even if the mother would definitely die if the pregnancy continued?

Medicine is not precise enough to say that anyone is going to “definitely die” of just about anything. Many people survive quite a few conditions that are usually fatal. There are stories about this happening all the time. But, no matter what a mother decides to do, it is a hard choice, which no one will argue. The Church recently canonized a woman (I forget her name) who refused to have surgery to save her life because she was pregnant (maybe someone else has mentioned this in the thread elsewhere–it’s just too long for me to go through all the posts, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned). These sorts of decisions are always hard and it is up to each woman to decide if she needs to have such a medical procedure to try to save her own life or if she is going to go ahead with her pregnancy and leave her fate in God’s hands alone. And as far as I know, tubal pregnancies are always fatal to the baby, so removing the tube would make no difference in the outcome with regards to the baby’s life.

 

[Katie1723]

I get the distinct impression and there is some confusion as to what exactly an ectopic pregnancy really is. And just what the ramifications are if an ectopic pregnancy continues.
~ Kathy ~

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I get the distinct impression and there is some confusion as to what exactly an ectopic pregnancy really is. And just what the ramifications are if an ectopic pregnancy continues.

            ~ Kathy ~

Yes, part of the problem is that we don’t know the technology well enough to have informed opinions on these things in a specific case.

It is OK to operate under various assumptions so that they may be considered, first this way then that, to see what those assumptions may do to change the conclusions – thus possibly revealing ways to reach conclusions that transcend current technology.

That is, it’s OK to operate on those assumptions as long as everybody understands that our ideas of right are wrong are not to be used to judge a real person, in the flesh, today.

To consider various “hypothetical technology” that may or may not exist is also valuable in anticipating technology, and is a valuable tool today because things that seem impossible may be readily available in a year so you had better be ahead of the curve on the ethics. Part of the problem of restricting the discussion to technology currently available is it is always backwards looking, and tries to keep the world ahead of the moral readiness of Christians. For example, a few decades ago cloning was an academic argument.

That said, I like to know the facts about what’s available, because 1) it’s nice to know what I’m talking about, 2) I love technology (ok so I’m an engineer) and really want to know, and 3) so often truth is stranger and more complex than anything I imagined, testing the ideas beyond what I would have.

Alan

 

[Cece]

You are correct that an ectopic pregnancy can occur anywhere
in the abdominal cavity, but it will not make it to birth any more than a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. A salpingectomy is killing
the embryo just as assuredly as anything else. What’s the difference? I don’t get that at all.
I am glad it is the Church’s responsibility to decide these things. This situation requires medical and theological experts with the ordained authority and help of the Holy Spirit to decide
upon. I’m not sure it’s even appropriate to be discussing it. I am
sure none of you would dissent the Church’s decision to grant
an annullment would you? Funny how it works that way.
If the Church said to pray it through and hope for the best, I would do it. If it told me that I had a moral duty to attempt to save my fertility, and lower my chances of serious or fatal harm (rupture
causes hemmorrhage into the abdominal cavity, and is difficult to
manage); I would do whatever was recommended. I know if I obey the Church, I’m covered. Those of you who are not under the Church’s authority; I wouldn’t want to be you in such a circumstance. Let us just pray it never happens.

 

[martino]

The key is understanding the difference between a direct abortion and an indirect abortion. This is out of the Modern Catholic Dictionary:

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 and 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.

 

[Cece]

I received a response from Priests for Life about the Methotrexate. I will quote what she wrote.( I asked her about my co-worker taking this drug when she found out she had an ectopic pregnancy.) Here is what Mary Worthington from Priests for Life wrote:
“No, taking Methotrexate to destroy an ectopic pregnancy is
not okay because it is a direct abortion. A direct abortion is never permissible for any reason. Direct, meaning that the action deliberately destroys the child, and intends to do so. Sometimes
ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an act is morally wrong. However, if
what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct
abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing
that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube. Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother’s life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called
the Principle of Double Effect.”
This answer does not satisfy me because, what is the difference? The presence of pain indicates cell division is still occuring. The medication is not given directly to kill the child, but to treat the tube. If the baby dies, that is an unwanted side effect. Whichever of you mentioned removing the tube, I suppose was correct as far as the Church goes, as that is what they permit.
I intend to do some questioning, however, as I have heard otherwise.I’ll share with this forum whatever I discover.

 

[martino]

Cece:

This answer does not satisfy me because, what is the difference? The presence of pain indicates cell division is still occuring. The medication is not given directly to kill the child, but to treat the tube. If the baby dies, that is an unwanted side effect. Whichever of you mentioned removing the tube, I suppose was correct as far as the Church goes, as that is what they permit.
I intend to do some questioning, however, as I have heard otherwise.I’ll share with this forum whatever I discover.

Cece, what is the purpose of the drug that is given…and would it be given to treat the mother even if she were not pregnant? Those are the questions that I see as being most relevant.

I may be wrong but I am under the impression that the drug is intended to kill the baby and that the baby’s death is what saves the mother and tube.