R
Riley259
Guest
Are there ever any situations in which abortion is justified and morally licit such as when a mother’s life might be in serious or grave danger? I’d like some feedback on this.
Is there ever a circumstance under which abortion would be justified?
- Status
D
Della
Guest
Abortion is only allowed if it is an indirect consequence of saving the mother’s life. An example would be if she had cervical cancer and so had to have her uterus removed. If she were pregnant, she would lose the baby but that would be an indirect consequence and not the reason for the surgery. It can never be that abortion was the direct reason for any medical procedures that would terminate the life of the unborn baby.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
There is one bizarre consequence to this I’ve heard (probably on these forums) about when the baby implants in the fallopian tube.
As I understood it, if the tube is removed to save the mother’s life and the baby is therefore killed, then it is licit. If, instead, the baby were surgically removed and the tube left in place, that would be illicit. I was not clear on whether the state-of-the-art in surgery was such that the second option was possible, but given that it is possible that was the conclusion. I found it strange if not suspect because if the baby has no chance for life, then why not preserve that half of the mother’s reproductive system? (if medically possible) If this is the way the teaching is to be applied, then my problem is it almost sounds like we are putting pro-life symbolism ahead of substance.
Alan
1
1ke
Guest
In a word: No.
R
Riley259
Guest
Is this true even if the mother would definitely die if the pregnancy continued?
1
1ke
Guest
Actually, there are moral and immoral tubal pregnancy procedures.
The removal of the diseased tissue-- which kills the baby as the unintended and unavoidable consequence b/c there is no way to save it— is morally licit.
The other procedure commonly used is a chemical abortion-- the woman is given drugs that terminate the pregnancy. It save the tube but it is a direct attack on the baby. Abortion. Many women probably don’t even know they are receiving an illicit treatment b/c doctors will go this route over surgery every time if allowed.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Yes, that sounds just like what I heard before.
What doesn’t make sense to me, though, is that under various assumptions, it sounds like the “licit” way does more damage than the “illicit” way. It may be exactly correct, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Church would require that either the mother die or at least the mother undergo mutilating surgery, when doing so does nothing to help the baby. If that’s official Church teaching, then either it needs to be reviewed or I am crazy after all. :whacky:
Alan
N
ncjohn
Guest
One situation where I would have a real dilemna is the situation where a woman is just not capable of “being” pregnant. There are women whose life is in danger just by becoming pregnant, and if one does, the choice comes between ending that pregnancy and her dying.
Since this usually is discovered very early in the pregnancy, or is known from a previous one, it usually means that if the woman were to choose to not terminate, she would die and the non-viable baby would die with her.
I thankfully never had to deal with the issue personally, but I have known a couple women who did and it was excruciating for them and their husbands.
And of course, it brings up a parallel issue that if they are known to have this condition where pregnancy would kill them, is contraception absolutely and incontrovertably unacceptable. I’ve heard differing opinions and different approaches. I can’t say how I might react if placed in the situation. I would lean toward celibacy knowing my wife’s life would be at stake, but a lifetime of perfect celibacy is a big demand.
Difficult questions for any but the armchair theologian in my humble opinion.
Peace,
Since this usually is discovered very early in the pregnancy, or is known from a previous one, it usually means that if the woman were to choose to not terminate, she would die and the non-viable baby would die with her.
I thankfully never had to deal with the issue personally, but I have known a couple women who did and it was excruciating for them and their husbands.
And of course, it brings up a parallel issue that if they are known to have this condition where pregnancy would kill them, is contraception absolutely and incontrovertably unacceptable. I’ve heard differing opinions and different approaches. I can’t say how I might react if placed in the situation. I would lean toward celibacy knowing my wife’s life would be at stake, but a lifetime of perfect celibacy is a big demand.
Difficult questions for any but the armchair theologian in my humble opinion.
Peace,
1
1ke
Guest
A woman has two tubes, so surgically removing part of one is not an undue burden. The surgery is not major, I believe they can do is laproscopically now. And let me add that it is only at this time that the surgery ends in fetal death. Perhaps in the future the technique will advance to the point of allowing the fetus to be moved to the womb. However, this other procedure-- a chemical abortion-- has become so popular out of its “convenience” that I believe it directly impacts and halts research on the moral alternative that might someday yield a solution that saves both the mother and the child. Medicine will never advance in its life-saving end as long as killing is allowed as a means of solving a medical problem.
The pill/chemical abortion is certainly less invasive, but it is not morally acceptable. It’s a simple case of ends and means. Evil can never be done so that good can come of it.
M
martino
Guest
If you mean a direct abortion the answer is NO!
Other procedures that may result in the death of the baby may be done to save the life of the mother, but never a direct abortion. That would be killing one innocent person to save another, which is always wrong.
Other procedures that may result in the death of the baby may be done to save the life of the mother, but never a direct abortion. That would be killing one innocent person to save another, which is always wrong.
1
1ke
Guest
The solution here is not to kill the child. The solution is to not become pregnant.
Actually, this is not an issue because the church teaches that contraception is intrinsically disordered. It is never allowed. Abstaining, either using NFP or completely would be the solution.
M
martino
Guest
That is a slightly more complicated scenario and i do not know the ins and outs of that kind of surgery. but you seem to be saying that since the baby is not going to live anyway it should be ok to directly kill it to save the mothers tube! in this case we are not even dealing with the life of the mother, we are only dealing with one of her tubes. so if we cannot directly kill an innocent baby even to save the LIFE of the mother, how could you think it is ok for the purpose of saving one of her tubes?
we are not putting symbolism ahead of substance, we are putting life over tubes!
S
Suzie1962
Guest
I disagree with the idea that “we are putting life over tubes.” In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the fetus must be removed regardless of methodology; otherwise, the tube will inevitably rupture, the fetus will inevitably die, and the mother’s life will be gravely endangered.
If the tubal pregnancy is treated by salpingectomy (removal of the tube or the portion of it in which the fetus is implanted), the fertility of the mother is impaired to some degree, as eggs from that ovary no longer have a path to the uterus. If the fetus is removed by salpingotomy (opening the tube to remove the fetus, which, as I understand, the Church considers illicit), the fertility of the mother may or may not be impaired, as tubal scarring may occur which may obstruct the tube. Consider also that tubal pregnancies often occur in women who have some degree of tubal scarring already (often due to a history of STD); therefore, causing further impairment to the reproductive system could very will significantly diminish the woman’s chance of conceiving in the future.
If chemicals are used to induce abortion of the tubally-implanted fetus, the fetus again dies, but further damage to the woman’s reproductive system is avoided, thereby avoiding further diminishing chances for conception. In this case, it seems to me that the option that salvages the tube is, in fact, the option that most favors life.
Optimally, I would hope that science will one day discover a way to move these embryos into the uterus to implant there. I don’t know whether that will ever be possible, but it certainly would be ideal. However, in the meantime, I agree with Alan that it seems contradictory to favor the option that decreases fertility in a situation in which the death of the fetus is inevitable and unpreventable.
M
martino
Guest
What i am saying is that we cannot ever intentionally kill an innocent human being even if doing so would save the life of another human being. Your solution to the ectopic pregnancy is to directly and intentionally kill an innocent human being, not in order to save the life of the mother (because it could be saved without directly murdering the baby), but to keep her from losing any of her fertility. I am very prolife and that is why I am glad that when a mothers life is in danger she has the moral option to save herself (as long as she isnt directly killing the baby). After all one life saved is better than no life saved! That is the pro-life position.
You have perverted the prolife position by saying that it is morally acceptable to intentionally and directly kill the unborn baby so that the mother has a greater chance of bringing future babies into the world. That is not a pro-life position, I dont really know what that is to tell you the truth.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Lovely idea in a perfect world, but what happens when she turns up pregnant anyway, for any number of legitimate reasons?
Do we just say “oh well, tough luck” and let both die rather than at least save one?
Like I said, tough questions except for armchair theologians (disclaimer: not implying here that YOU are an armchair theologian).
Peace,
C
Cece
Guest
I’m sorry, Martino, but I think you are incorrect. In an ectopic pregnancy, the baby will die in any case. There is no hope for the
baby, and rupture of the tube puts the mother in grave and mortal
danger. The Church does allow for this. It is horrible. A co-worker of mine did have to take the methotrexate (she is a protestant). What bothered her as much was that people would dismiss it as no big deal. It was a big deal. I doubt she will ever get over it, although she, thankfully, managed to conceive again at a later date. You must remember, it is not taking the baby for mom’s sake. It is trying to save one instead of losing both.
baby, and rupture of the tube puts the mother in grave and mortal
danger. The Church does allow for this. It is horrible. A co-worker of mine did have to take the methotrexate (she is a protestant). What bothered her as much was that people would dismiss it as no big deal. It was a big deal. I doubt she will ever get over it, although she, thankfully, managed to conceive again at a later date. You must remember, it is not taking the baby for mom’s sake. It is trying to save one instead of losing both.
1
1ke
Guest
The church allows for the removal of the diseased tube through surgery, not for taking Methotrexate-- a chemical abortion.I’m sorry, Martino, but I think you are incorrect. In an ectopic pregnancy, the baby will die in any case. There is no hope for the
baby, and rupture of the tube puts the mother in grave and mortal
danger. The Church does allow for this. It is horrible. A co-worker of mine did have to take the methotrexate (she is a protestant). What bothered her as much was that people would dismiss it as no big deal. It was a big deal. I doubt she will ever get over it, although she, thankfully, managed to conceive again at a later date. You must remember, it is not taking the baby for mom’s sake. It is trying to save one instead of losing both.
To say “the baby is going to die anyway” is a utilitarian ethic, it is not allowed in church teaching. The same could be said of all of us, after all. And, what of Terri Schiavo? She was “going to die anyway” so why feed her?
Sorry, this is** not ** a Catholic ethic nor Church teaching on the matter.
1
1ke
Guest
The goal in any legitmate treatment is always attempt to save both. The mother can be treated, but the baby absolutely cannot be killed.
Killing the baby through a direct abortion is never a morally allowable choice.
I am not being an “armchair” theologian here, Church teaching is quite clear.
1
1ke
Guest
But, the methodology is central to the morality of the act. Again, we are back to ends and means. The end is the same, but the means are not. It is never allowable to do an evil so that a good may come from it.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
You present it as if the baby is going to die for a tube.
The baby is doomed. It will die, either at the hands of a doctor or when it kills its mother. Saving the tube does NOT kill the child. What diff to the child if the mother’s body is mutilated so that we may believe we killed the child in the “correct” way. The more I think about it, the more this is patently absurd.
Actually, I think it should be the other way around. If a baby can be removed (killed in the process) without mutilating the mother, but for religious reasons the baby is killed by the process and in addition the mother’s reproductive organs are disturbed, then in fact the mother has just gone elective mutilation surgery, which I don’t find any less objectionable than if the mother simple went in and had the tubes tied.
We’re only talking one tube here, but how do we know the other works? The Church is so pure about a guy not being able to “spill his seed” and yet we write off a mother’s reproductive organs for zero benefit to anyone but our sense of righteousness. This is flat screwy, and I find it hard to believe that the Church would take such a gruesome stance.
It’s like, “OK, the baby is going to die so in order to obey some arbitrary sense of righteousness we also have to throw out the bathwater, the tub, and the mold from which it was made and might have gone on to make another one.” :whacky:
No wonder Catholics are seen as legalistic. It still sounds like appearances over reality here.
Alan
- Status