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

[AlanFromWichita]

1ke:

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?

That’s not a valid comparison. If Shaivo was left alone her life would not have taken another.

A valid comparison would be since Terry is going to die, we must go find her mother (or surrogate for this purpose at least) and perform elective mutilation surgery on her so that Terri may die “properly.”

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1ke:

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.

Yes, you are right the method makes a difference.

One method kills the baby. The other method kills the baby plus mutilates the mother.

Technically, we are selling it this way: One method kills the baby. The other method doesn’t actually kill the baby, but it mutilates the mother and the baby just “happens to die” as a result.

Really, how can this possibly be an unfair way to describe it? This is really sounding kind of sick. http://bestsmileys.com/sick/9.gif If the Church really honestly and specifically teaches this, then I really am going to have to rethink some things.

Alan

 

[kmktexas]

Suzie1962:

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.

Not exactly true. In the case of a ‘tubal’ pregnancy, the baby will inevitably die and the tube may OR MAY NOT rupture before it does. There is an option that is usuable in a large number of cases, where the baby is allowed to die naturally and then the baby only is removed, after death. This is perfectly licit. This adds extra risk and, like all risk, that must be weighed in light of the available options. There are some studies that say that most ectopic pregancies resolve themselves naturally, often before the woman knows she is pregnant. In fact, this is one cause of the pre-existing fallopian scarring that some women have.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

kmktexas:

Not exactly true. In the case of a ‘tubal’ pregnancy, the baby will inevitably die and the tube may OR MAY NOT rupture before it does. There is an option that is usuable in a large number of cases, where the baby is allowed to die naturally and then the baby only is removed, after death. This is perfectly licit. This adds extra risk and, like all risk, that must be weighed in light of the available options. There are some studies that say that most ectopic pregancies resolve themselves naturally, often before the woman knows she is pregnant. In fact, this is one cause of the pre-existing fallopian scarring that some women have.

Thank you for the information! Now this is starting to make a little more sense.

Alan

 

[martino]

Cece:

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.

i wasnt saying that she cannot have a procedure to save her life, she not only can but to be truly pro-life she “should”!!! One life saved is better than none!

what i was saying is that she cannot directly kill the baby to save her life, she must choose a procedure that saves her life where the death of the baby is an unwanted side effect.

i know its terrible and a very emotional topic especially for anyone that has gone through it, but if you are saying that to save the life of the mother we can directly and intentionally kill the baby then you are taking a position that is against the Magisterium of the Church.

if you find that my position is in any way against Church teaching then i would love to be corrected.

 

[martino]

AlanFromWichita:

You present it as if the baby is going to die for a tube.

In your scenario the baby is being killed to save a tube…at least own up to what you are saying. I understand that the baby is going to die regardless, but that doesnt mean that we go ahead and kill it for the purpose of saving a tube…that is exactly what you have said! There is a very big difference between someone dying and someone being killed, I hope you can realize that.

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.

Saving the tube is not what kills the child you are right, injecting it with deadly chemicals (or however they do it) IS WHAT KILLS THE CHILD! I am not saying it is immoral to save a tube, I am saying it is immoral to inject deadly chemicals into a baby to kill it!!

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.

Alan the reason is because you are not thinking about it correctly. In our prolife/Catholic scenario the baby isn’t being killed at all, so it is not a question of whether its being killed in the correct way or not! This is the key point that you must understand. Removing the tube to save the mothers life is not directly killing the baby even though the baby will surely die as a result, but the baby’s death in this case is an unwanted side effect!

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.

Alan read my lips…WE CANNOT DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO SAVE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER. Now you tell me what you find screwy about that statement??? I can find plenty screwy with your statement which effectively says this: IT IS OK TO KILL ONE PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING ANOTHER! that is not only screwy but its down right scary!!!

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 you never cease to amaze me. So because the baby is going to die anyway we should find a way to at least benefit from its impending death? Ok, there are lots of people in the hospital right now and they are going to die no matter what, some of them are on the brink of death as we speak. There are others that are dying but could be saved with the beating hearts of those about to die. Since they aer going to die anyway, do you think it is ok to remove their still beating heart in order to save the life of another patient? In what other ways could we benefit from the dying by killing them in a way that provides benefits to the rest of us?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

In your scenario the baby is being killed to save a tube…at least own up to what you are saying. I understand that the baby is going to die regardless, but that doesnt mean that we go ahead and kill it for the purpose of saving a tube…that is exactly what you have said! There is a very big difference between someone dying and someone being killed, I hope you can realize that.

At least own up? Please, sir, just because you don’t understand what I’m saying doesn’t imply that I am not “owning up to” it.

OK, so we don’t go ahead and kill the baby to save the tube, we just destroy the tube which also kills the baby – an effect totally known in advance.

A doctor once told me that in his opinion, there is no difference between “side effects” and just plain “effects” other than that some of them we see in bold print and others in fine print.

If I die as a result of somebody bulldozing down my house (which is exactly comparable to the situation at hand) with FULL KNOWLEDGE that I am inside, then the driver is no less responsible for my death because the intent was only to get rid of a house.

Saving the tube is not what kills the child you are right, injecting it with deadly chemicals (or however they do it) IS WHAT KILLS THE CHILD! I am not saying it is immoral to save a tube, I am saying it is immoral to inject deadly chemicals into a baby to kill it!!

Injecting deadly chemicals is considered one of the most humane ways to “terminate” criminals because they don’t feel it. Is tearing apart their home and killing them in the process any more humane? In practice, do they give the baby an analgesic before this procedure? If not then the deadly chemicals are probably more merciful.

Alan the reason is because you are not thinking about it correctly. In our prolife/Catholic scenario the baby isn’t being killed at all, so it is not a question of whether its being killed in the correct way or not! This is the key point that you must understand.

No, the baby isn’t being killed. It just dies as a result of us tearing its house apart.

Removing the tube to save the mothers life is not directly killing the baby even though the baby will surely die as a result, but the baby’s death in this case is an unwanted side effect!

This is very strange to me. Are you saying that all we have to do is “pretend” we’re not killing the baby and that makes the difference?

Alan read my lips…WE CANNOT DIRECTLY AND INTENTIONALLY KILL ONE INNOCENT PERSON TO SAVE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER. Now you tell me what you find screwy about that statement??? I can find plenty screwy with your statement which effectively says this: IT IS OK TO KILL ONE PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING ANOTHER! that is not only screwy but its down right scary!!!

I’m scared that you are scared. There is nothing to be afraid of here; just some bits flying around the Internet.

OK, you win because I don’t want you scared. We cannot directly and intentionally kill one innocent person to save the life of another.

Along with those lines, I just realized we really aren’t killing the baby at all – and certainly without intent to kill the baby. We are simply removing it from a situation where its doomed existence endangers life of another. Does that help?

Alan you never cease to amaze me.

Thank you. I’ve always thought I was rather amazing.

So because the baby is going to die anyway we should find a way to at least benefit from its impending death?

Yes, insofar as we should find a way to reduce the collateral damage done in the light of its imminent death. We are simply avoiding compounding tragedy by adding evil and more tragedy to it. That, I suppose, could be considered a “benefit,” although the “benefit” word makes it sound more selfish somehow.

Ok, there are lots of people in the hospital right now and they are going to die no matter what, some of them are on the brink of death as we speak. There are others that are dying but could be saved with the beating hearts of those about to die. Since they aer going to die anyway, do you think it is ok to remove their still beating heart in order to save the life of another patient? In what other ways could we benefit from the dying by killing them in a way that provides benefits to the rest of us?

The people in the hospital won’t cause anyone an internal rupture or worse by their continued existence.

Perhaps if you need another angle to see how Catholic my opinion is, consider the Catechism teaching on killing to defend oneself. In this case all the criteria apply; death to the person threatening the mother is not the intent,but is a reaction to a reasonable effort to protect the mother from harm and possibly death.

Thank you for the spirited banter, martino. It’s good to be back here.

Alan

 

[1ke]

AlanFromWichita:

Yes, you are right the method makes a difference.

One method kills the baby. The other method kills the baby plus mutilates the mother.

Technically, we are selling it this way: One method kills the baby. The other method doesn’t actually kill the baby, but it mutilates the mother and the baby just “happens to die” as a result.

Really, how can this possibly be an unfair way to describe it? This is really sounding kind of sick. http://bestsmileys.com/sick/9.gif If the Church really honestly and specifically teaches this, then I really am going to have to rethink some things.

Alan

I don’t get what your problem is here. Abortion is NEVER acceptable. It is not ours to decide who lives and who dies-- EVER.

The Church teaches that surgery, ie, “mutiliation”, is acceptable to cure a diseased state. That is the only acceptable means available at this time. The other means is KILLING and that’s never a morally acceptable option.

It does not matter that the baby will die in any event. This is the same argument used for killing severely handicapped children in-utero, terminally ill patients, and it is NEVER acceptable.

We may never do evil even if good results. Do you disagree with this statement?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1ke:

I don’t get what your problem is here. Abortion is NEVER acceptable. It is not ours to decide who lives and who dies-- EVER.

That is fine, but here we aren’t making such decisions. We are just deciding whether they will be “put to sleep” with chemicals or torn apart as their house is destroyed. (see my reply to martino for context)

As far as our decision “when” they die, Catholic teaching allows for that to some degree. It is perfectly licit to withdraw heroic, life sustaining treatment (not nourishment or water as in Shaivo, certainly!) from a terminally ill patient under various conditions. The problem is, another human makes the decision of the exact time at which they disconnect a machine which directly affects the time the patient dies. All this is licit according to Catholic teaching.

The Church teaches that surgery, ie, “mutiliation”, is acceptable to cure a diseased state. That is the only acceptable means available at this time. The other means is KILLING and that’s never a morally acceptable option.

Right, and if mutilation surgery is being used to remove a fallopian tube because there is a baby in it, then it plays into the hands of the pro-abort rhetoric that in light of this procedure the baby is seen as a “disease” or a “cyst.” By your very reasoning, if we use such techniques, it implies there is a disease.

It’s a baby, not a disease, and it is in trouble. Removing it surgically as if it were a disease does not give a moral high ground as if the baby didn’t exist.

Maybe it is time for me to use some capital letters. WE ARE STILL KILLING THE BABY WHEN WE DO THE MUTILATION PROCEDURE ON THE MOTHER WHETHER WE DENY IT OR NOT.

It does not matter that the baby will die in any event. This is the same argument used for killing severely handicapped children in-utero, terminally ill patients, and it is NEVER acceptable.

You are right that the same argument is used. The problem is, it doesn’t apply here. The baby’s contnued life is a direct threat to the life of the mother, and that condition is completely absent in the scenarios you presented above. Therefore, the argument might be used in both places but here it doesn’t apply.

We may never do evil even if good results. Do you disagree with this statement?

No, I don’t disagree.

In complete agreement with that statement, I also stand by Catholic teaching on killing in defense of one’s life where knowingly and intentionally causing more damage than was required to remedy the threat is illicit. We may never do evil (elect to damage the mother when doing so has no positive effects for the baby) even if good results (our good feelings that in this troubled time a person thinks they have done what is right).

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CCC:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

(boldface mine)

The Truth will set you free.

He who has ears, let him hear.

Alan

 

[kpwhite777]

I am no expert, just a common person with a very strong faith in God. My personal opinion is that there is never a good reason to take anyone’s life, but sometimes it is God’s will that that life be taken. You truly know in your heart whether you have made a selfish act or not. Abortion is a decision, just as committing adultery or stealing, a sin is a sin. The measurement of sin is in the repurcussions of your sin while you are still alive here on this earth. You have to live with your sin and therefore you have the avenue of confession to clean your slate and only you know when the slate is truly clean. We are all sinners by nature…abortion, to me, is a secondary sin to the initial sin of sex outside of marriage, in most cases. We pile sin on top of sin, and in today’s society, most seem to make it acceptable…only because nobody wants to feel bad and we want everyone to be okay, and that is not such a bad thing, but we have to own up and face reality of our sinful nature and know that life will not always be wonderful, that we do pay for our sin. Now, I have really gotten carried away here…enough for now Ken

 

[AlanFromWichita]

kpwhite777:

We are all sinners by nature…abortion, to me, is a secondary sin to the initial sin of sex outside of marriage, in most cases. We pile sin on top of sin, and in today’s society, most seem to make it acceptable…only because nobody wants to feel bad and we want everyone to be okay, and that is not such a bad thing, but we have to own up and face reality of our sinful nature and know that life will not always be wonderful, that we do pay for our sin. Now, I have really gotten carried away here…enough for now Ken

This is an excellent point. Abortion would be rare if it weren’t used to “clean up after” promiscuity.

Even though I am politically pro-life and have been elected to public office with endorsements of the conservative pro-life KRA (Kansas Republican Assembly), this is one of the criticisms I have of how we spend our time and effort … the truly best way to attack the abortion industry is to take away its customers by instilling chastity in young people, something I’m afraid the Church is not a lot better than society at large at doing – which partly speaks to her frustration (as her own members intentionally vote pro-choice in secret) and frankly, her credibility. It’s very complex; we have teenagers standing in the life chain, holding a sign, before and after having abortions themselves.

Alan

 

[kpwhite777]

 

[Anna_s_Mom]

my aunt had 5 children, her youngest being very mentally retarted. When she became pregnant for the 6th time she was very excited. Then the doctors told her she would not survive the pregnany (for reasons I do not know. I was very small at the time) She went back and forth for some time on what she should do. She wanted to keep the child, but that meant she wouldn’t be there for her other children. She also feared that her youngest would end up in an institution, as that was what was recommended in those days for handicapped children. She ended up having an abortion. I have heard my mother say many times how this really affected my aunt emotionally.

I’m not sure if this was the right decision or not. Just a little insight.

 

[Mike_Rainville]

Della:

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.

In this case, the procedure would be a uterectomy, not an abortion.

 

[Mike_Rainville]

AlanFromWichita:

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

In this case the procedure, the removal of th fallopian tube, is called a salpingectomy, not an abortion.

 

[Mike_Rainville]

Riley259:

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

This reply doesn’t make sense. If the uterus is removed, by a uterectomy, the removal of the cancerous uterus, which is allowed, why say “is this true.” The mother has a right to self defense. The procedure, is NOT an abortion.

There is a baby living in the diseased womb that was removed, of necessity, whose death we do not intend, and who we mourn.

Perhaps someday, medical science will find a way to transplant such children into another, perhaps childless womb, to save their lives.

Read the story of Saint Gianna Berretta Molla, a medical doctor, who accepted death by cancer to save the life of her daughter, who attended her canonization.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Mike Rainville:

In this case the procedure, the removal of th fallopian tube, is called a salpingectomy, not an abortion.

That is good information.

Not calling it an abortion, though, doesn’t change the fact that the baby still dies, plus it results in greater damage to human reproductive tissure than an “abortion” would. :nope:

That comes back to the question of symbols (what we call it) over substance (the results of our actions).

To the old saying, “it is not OK to do evil even if it results in good” I might add, “it is not OK to do evil because it has a nicer name than good” or as applied to the topic at hand, “if it quacks like a duck…” or “an abortion by any other name.”

Alan

 

[kpwhite777]

This is just my opinion, for what it is worth. The aunt who had the abortion to save her own life, according to doctors, should not feel bad about having that abortion. She is human and most would have made that decision. Having said that, most people’s faith is weak, this being a very good example of just how thin our faith can really be. Even though a professional doctor said she would not survive, how does he really know for sure. Could it be the will of God for her to die? Who really knows what God’s will really has in store for us. But, being human, we want to live, naturally and we will do whatever to try to stay alive. I am not sure I wouldnt have made the same decision, but it would have been interesting to see what would really have happened had she not had the abortion but just prayed for God’s will. This is a toughie…but a true testament of just how weak our true faith can be. Ken

 

[Cece]

It makes no sense to perform an invasive procedure uneccesarily.
It is important to keep complications to a minimum. Ectopic pregnancy is a very unique situation. I have heard it several times that in this case, it is okay to take the Methotrexate. Methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug. We give it for cancer. It attacks rapidly dividing cells in the body.Don’t you think that sometimes it is given when the woman happens to be in the early stages of pregnancy? It is entirely possible, even probable. You guys all seem to like to impress yourselves by spouting off, but God forbid any of you should have to face such a decision. This is a real situation that actually occurs more than you realize. No one is talking about saving the mother or the tube instead of the baby. The baby is doomed, no exceptions. Ask God for an explanation, not me. Anyway, I have asked the apologists to show me where I can find it exactly spelled out and that should pretty much settle things.