Is this pro-life argument true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dobereiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dobereiner

Guest
“There is no life-threatening situation in pregnancy where a direct abortion is the only way to save the mother.”

(Sorry if this topic has been discussed before!)
 
Last edited:
I began to explore this subject.
As I study the Polish language is interesting to me the Polish experience in addressing issues of interruption of pregnancy.
I think that for me, in this case it is better to read more and to listen to others participating in the debate.
 
What are the treatments for those conditions? I suspect that none of them are abortions, although they would almost certainly cause the baby’s death.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
There are situations whereby the mother would almost certainly die if the baby and placenta were not removed.
  • pre-eclampsia /eclampsia
  • HELLP syndrome
  • ectopic pregnancy
    are 3 which spring to mind.
But the goal here is to save the mother, not kill the baby.
Click to expand...
Correct. And none of those instances classify as an “abortion.”
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
There are a few situations where a pregnancy must be ended or the mother will die. Do we call that an abortion? I personally would not. If for no other reason than to be respectful to the mother, who is probably devastated.
Click to expand...
and in none of those instances would a mother be a Planned Parenthood for the procedure, they would be in a hospital.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
There are a few situations where a pregnancy must be ended or the mother will die
Click to expand...
And to be clear, the pregnancy is never the reason the mother is sick or dying. It’s always something else that is the root cause.
 
No. The Church forbids direct abortion as intrinsically evil, therefore it is not justifiable for any reason whatsoever. The Church has declared that this absolute moral prohibition extends also to intentionally removing the child at a stage where there is no reasonable possibility of survival.

So there are certain cases where the mother can only by saved by means which are intrinsically gravely evil. This does not falsify the Church’s teaching, since consequentalism is a false view of morality.
 
Cecilia_Dympna said:
Well you can’t have an ectopic pregnancy without actually being pregnant. Or the other 2 examples I gave for that matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the reason an ectopic pregnancy is bad is because the mother’s body implanted the embryo outside the uterus.

My point was that it’s a problem with the mother’s biology (in this case the mother’s biology implanting the embryo in the wrong place), not the embryo itself.
 
Why are indirect abortions to be ruled out of this scenario?
 
So if “just” abortions aren’t to be called abortions … then there really is nothing to discuss by the looks of it :roll_eyes:.
 
Last edited:
They have had success with Ectopic pregnancies in trying to remove the baby and “re-plant” it in the uterus. It doesn’t always work but then at least you tried and did not murder the baby.
 
The problem with such arguments is that they deal in absolutes–there are physical things that we cannot know about the human body that only reveal themselves at a particular/extreme situation; a few years back a young, seemingly healthy, high school student dropped dead while playing basketball (or some other sport) in the school’s gym–what was discovered was that he had a bad heart which had been undiagnosed and any symptoms that he may have displayed were attributed to growth, personal stress/fatigue or some other generally held belief. None could have dreamed that this child/young man who was in the fullness of health (from all apparent thought) could be so vulnerable.

The stress to which a woman’s body is put through during pregnancy and child baring could well exacerbate any hidden illness/defect.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton said:
The stress to which a woman’s body is put through during pregnancy and child baring could well exacerbate any hidden illness/defect.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but the pregnancy does not cause the defect and it is likely that something else would have triggered it.
 
I agree; the pre-existing condition can be worsen by the stress which a woman’s body may suffer due to the pregnancy; however, aborting the baby may not necessarily be the only course–the contraceptive mentality jumps at abortion as the immediate and only recourse… we know this as carrying a baby to full term is often associated with bad health or poor choice or immaturity… all while ignoring the real truth which is self-respect, self-control, and responsibility for one’s acts–chastity has never killed anyone and it has never been suspect of any transmission of stds or “unwanted pregnancies.”

But such thoughts are too “Catholic” to be accepted and practiced… so the contraceptive mentality rules.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Dobereiner said:
“There is no life-threatening situation in pregnancy where a direct abortion is the only way to save the mother.”
Click to expand...
Primary hepatic pregnancy is a type of abdominal pregnancy which is extremely rare where the site of implantation is in the liver and it is associated with a very high mortality rate.
 
The point here is that a pregnant woman is two people equally deserving of respect and care but the nature of pregnancy is that especially in the early stages the child cannot survive without the mother.

So there are instances where the mother needs treatment to be saved, without which both would die. But which will as a consequence probably lead the child to die.

But there are no instances where the motivation of wanting to kill the child as an end in itself are anything but sinful.
 
Do you have the study on this?? I’m sure thousands of women would like to have this procedure if it did exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top