Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[Viki63]

Also, to clear up confusion on my previous point. In Catholic hospitals, there is a rule that an abortion, to remove a child after a mother miscarries, must be carried out after the fetal heartbeat is no longer there. This is a problem because infection can set into the mother if the fetus is not removed quick enough. Women have died or gone septic because the hospital prolonged giving the women the care she deserved because the hospital put there beliefs before the wishes of there patient.

I think there is some confusion here. A “miscarriage” is the loss of a pregnancy. I think you mean the child has died in utero, not that the mother miscarried.

If the child has passed away, of course a procedure would be done to remove the remains. That is not an abortion. If the child has not died, then the correct course would be to try and protect the pregnancy, so we see recommendations like keeping the mother in bed for several weeks, etc.

Of course there have been rare cases of incompetence or malpractice, as in any institution. But generally speaking Catholic hospitals try to protect the lives of both the mother and baby.

.

 

[ricmat]

While it is correct that we should use the minimal force required, it should be noted that:

• fine judgements are not easy in these situations and a great deal is at stake;
• there can be cases where it remains moral to resolve to use the death of the aggressor as the means of defence.

As you correctly say, we must not have in mind an “end” to kill someone (as might arise as a form of retribution), for that is an evil intention and renders the act immoral. But to choose death as a means (physical evil) for self-defence can be moral.

I agree 100%.

 

[CradleJourney]

There are others, but they are the three main ones which I keep going around and round in circles. I’m not sure what I’m after, I have asked about individual points before. It would be interesting to hear if any other converts struggled with these? How you overcame them? General advice etc?

I’m not a convert, but a re-vert - and yes, I’ve struggled with these and so much more.

In the end, after MUCH struggle it all came down to this - did I believe in God? Based on my life experiences, intellect, and what I believe to be first hand experience with His intervention - my answer had to be absolutely, yes.

So that brought up question #2 - was the Catholic Church founded by God? Again, based on research, common sense, reflection and upbringing, the answer was yes.

So if there is a God (yes) and the Catholic Church is the one and only true church founded by Him (not an off-shoot, not founded by a person, but by God, himself through his Son), then it was simple - I had to rejoin that church.

But what about all my issues with teachings, my questions, my disagreements with this/that? Well, I simply decided I had to trust God. He knew my doubts, and disagreements and still I felt Him strongly calling me to rejoin His church.

So - I did. I still question. I still struggle. I still doubt. And to me that’s okay - look at my user name. I feel now that I was never designed to be 100% certain or comfortable with every teaching but that instead I’m supposed to just keep learning, keep on the journey to seek more and better understanding, and I have. Some things I’ve done a complete turn around in my thinking and now I’m fully with the teaching of the Church - some things I’m still working on. God (and my priest) knows I’m a work in progress - and probably always will be. I just figure God knew all along that it would be in the struggle of this journey that I would learn best and grow the most.

Thomas Merton wrote a beautiful prayer that sums it up for me: “My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.”

 

[thewanderer]

It looks like you’ve gotten a lot of replies to your questions, but I’m going to throw in another opinion on the issue of contraception. I hope it will be helpful.

Basically, I completely understand the confusion you have about contraception and personally I find most peoples explanation of church teaching to be insufficient to explain how the teaching makes sense. Now, I’m not saying I fully understand it myself, but I will throw out the part that makes sense to me and hopefully that will help you too.

Basically, the part that I still don’t fully understand is exactly why the Chur h takes up the principal that it is intrinsically evil to take an action which makes you infertile for the sake of making you infertile. However, if you accept that principal then the only logical conclusion is that abstinence, whether permanent or periodic, is the only moral way to avoid a pregnancy. If it’s immoral to take an action that renders you infertile then the only way to avoid prevents to abstain from sex when you are/may be fertile. All NFP does is allow you to know more accurately whether or not you are fertile so you can make a better informed decision as to whether or not to abstain.

The questions you have about why contraception isn’t allowed even if a pregnancy would put the mothers life at risk gets into the principal of double effect. Basically, the church teaches that you may never do evil so that good will come of it, however, you may perform neutral actions which will have both good and bad effects so long as the good effects balance out the bad effects and so long as the good effects do not rely upon the bad effects in order to occur. So, in the case of a hysterectomy, the reason it is ok if it is for an immediate medical concern even though it will render the person sterile is that removing the cancerous tumor, for example, only coincidentally causes sterilization. When you remove the uterus you are not trying to make the person sterile, you are simply trying to remove the cancer. Whereas in the case of someone who needs to avoid pregnancy for life-threatening reasons the entire point of the hysterectomy is to make them infertile. So, in this case, the good achieved, protection of the woman’s life from a potential threat, is only achieved by relying directly on an evil, making her infertile.

Let me know if any of this is hnclear, I hope it is at least somewhat helpful in understanding the church’s position. And sorry for any typos, I’m in my phone and it has a horrible tendency to autocorrect things incorrectly.

 

[Vico]

It looks like you’ve gotten a lot of replies to your questions, but I’m going to throw in another opinion on the issue of contraception. I hope it will be helpful.

Basically, I completely understand the confusion you have about contraception and personally I find most peoples explanation of church teaching to be insufficient to explain how the teaching makes sense. Now, I’m not saying I fully understand it myself, but I will throw out the part that makes sense to me and hopefully that will help you too.

Basically, the part that I still don’t fully understand is exactly why the Chur h takes up the principal that it is intrinsically evil to take an action which makes you infertile for the sake of making you infertile. However, if you accept that principal then the only logical conclusion is that abstinence, whether permanent or periodic, is the only moral way to avoid a pregnancy. If it’s immoral to take an action that renders you infertile then the only way to avoid prevents to abstain from sex when you are/may be fertile. All NFP does is allow you to know more accurately whether or not you are fertile so you can make a better informed decision as to whether or not to abstain.

The questions you have about why contraception isn’t allowed even if a pregnancy would put the mothers life at risk gets into the principal of double effect. Basically, the church teaches that you may never do evil so that good will come of it, however, you may perform neutral actions which will have both good and bad effects so long as the good effects balance out the bad effects and so long as the good effects do not rely upon the bad effects in order to occur. So, in the case of a hysterectomy, the reason it is ok if it is for an immediate medical concern even though it will render the person sterile is that removing the cancerous tumor, for example, only coincidentally causes sterilization. When you remove the uterus you are not trying to make the person sterile, you are simply trying to remove the cancer. Whereas in the case of someone who needs to avoid pregnancy for life-threatening reasons the entire point of the hysterectomy is to make them infertile. So, in this case, the good achieved, protection of the woman’s life from a potential threat, is only achieved by relying directly on an evil, making her infertile.

Let me know if any of this is hnclear, I hope it is at least somewhat helpful in understanding the church’s position. And sorry for any typos, I’m in my phone and it has a horrible tendency to autocorrect things incorrectly.

Address to Midwives, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951 (Excerpt)

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

fisheaters.com/addresstomidwives.html

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you disagreeing with anything that I said?

Address to Midwives, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951 (Excerpt)

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

fisheaters.com/addresstomidwives.html

 

[Vico]

I’m not sure what your point is. Are you disagreeing with anything that I said?

I was hoping it would provide answers for you, since you wrote “I find most peoples explanation of church teaching to be insufficient to explain how the teaching makes sense. Now, I’m not saying I fully understand it myself”.

 

[thewanderer]

I was hoping it would provide answers for you, since you wrote “I find most peoples explanation of church teaching to be insufficient to explain how the teaching makes sense. Now, I’m not saying I fully understand it myself”.

Oh, ok, no, I understand why even with abstinence you need a sufficient reason to avoid children. What I still don’t understand fully is why the church takes up the principal that any action that renders someone infertile is evil if they intend the infertility. Explanations such as “Babies are a blessing from God” are insufficient because they fail to take into account the fact that there is nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy in itself, it just needs to be done the right way for the right reasons. I know it is based on the idea of mutilation, but I feel like other things that count as mutilation are allowed so I still struggle a little to see why this particular example is completely ruled out. Sorry for the confusion, it can be hard to read tone online!

 

[AiyanaS]

This is simply to corrupt the expression - to butcher its meaning - which was explained to you earlier (post #97).

There is no corrupting the expression or butcher it’s meaning. The ends in using self defense to defend yourself justifies the means of killing your attacker.

That’s not butchering. I don’t see what you are getting at.

 

[Rau]

There is no corrupting the expression or butcher it’s meaning. The ends in using self defense to defend yourself justifies the means of killing your attacker.

That’s not butchering. I don’t see what you are getting at.

Because the ends not justifying means is a universal statement, not particular to moral acts. The ends cannot justify means which are themselves intrinsically evil. To kill an aggressor as the necessary means entails no morally evil act.

Eg: The ends not justifying the means tells us that direct abortions are not justified simply because they are a means to deliver some intended good end. In fact we know that intentionally and directly killing innocents is immoral. The ends (some good being pursued) does Not change this immoral means into something that is now justified.

 

[AiyanaS]

I think there is some confusion here. A “miscarriage” is the loss of a pregnancy. I think you mean the child has died in utero, not that the mother miscarried.

If the child has passed away, of course a procedure would be done to remove the remains. That is not an abortion. If the child has not died, then the correct course would be to try and protect the pregnancy, so we see recommendations like keeping the mother in bed for several weeks, etc.

Of course there have been rare cases of incompetence or malpractice, as in any institution. But generally speaking Catholic hospitals try to protect the lives of both the mother and baby.

No, there is zero confusion here on my part. The only confusion is on the part of those reading my post who are not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not trying to be mean by the way, writing doesn’t give an idea of tone, you know?

A miscarriage is medically called a spontaneous abortion because the mothers body is refusing the fetus for whatever reason. It also does not mean the baby will die immediately.

According to Catholic hospital policy, in the case of a miscarriage or some deadly situation where the fetus will die, either way, the fetal heartbeat must be gone before the baby can be removed. However, what do you think will happen if the baby isn’t removed and the water is broken or some barrier to the outside of the mother is broken? The answer, infection sets in and when the hospital waits too long to remove a dying baby, if too young to survive outside the mother (ex 11 weeks), infection will set in and the mother goes septic and dies.

Physicians have quit or been fired for ignoring hospital policy to save a dying woman by performing a “direct abortion” to remove a already dying fetus to stop the loss of both lives instead of just one. One doctor even reached into one patient (who was grey and clearing dying of sepsis) and cut the umbilical cord, which was hanging a few inches above the vagina so that the fetal monitor stopped working so he and his team could go in and remove it. Another doctor quit his job after performing an abortion on a dying mother, also sepsis, he was disgusted by the hospitals negligence. Basically, in both cases the women were left without treatment because there baby had not died yet, thus they became septic and if it wasn’t for there doctors they would have died. Let’s also not forget the Hindi woman in Ireland who asked too have the baby removed after she miscarried and the hospital refused, saying the baby wasn’t dead yet, she died of sepsis hours to a day or so later.

Catholic hospitals first priority is not there patients, it’s religious dogma. It is unethical to mix religious dogma with medicine. And this is precisely why I tell all my friends and family, if you get pregnant do not go to a Catholic hospital, if complications arise, it may just be the last decision you make. For, argue with me all you want that Catholic hospitals are for the good of both when in reality, it is the baby over the mother, even if it means both die.

Here are some examples:
theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/michigan-catholic-hospital-women-miscarriage-abortion-mercy-health-partners

theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/12/22/st-josephs-hospital-no-longer-catholic-after-abortion-to-save-mothers-life/5546

lnr.politicususa.com/miscarriage-dont-catholic-hospital-842/
“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which sets the rules for all Catholic hospitals, has said that its hospitals should let a woman die rather than provide an emergency abortion. “The directives prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination, even when there is little or no chance that the fetus will survive, and the life or health of a pregnant woman is at risk,” the nonprofit organization wrote.”

Eg: The ends not justifying the means tells us that direct abortions are not justified simply because they are a means to deliver some intended good end. In fact we know that intentionally and directly killing innocents is immoral. The ends (some good being pursued) does Not change this immoral means into something that is now justified.

See above.

 

[Rau]

AidanaS - my earlier posts were to explain the meaning of the ends do no justify the means. I assume it is clear now?

And to confirm - this does mean one innocent life, even one that will die regardless, may not be murdered for the benefit of another. The doctor has two patients and must work in the best interests of each. If that’s what you mean by putting dogma first - so be it.

 

[AiyanaS]

AidanaS - my earlier posts were to explain the meaning of the ends do no justify the means. I assume it is clear now?

And to confirm - this does mean one innocent life, even one that will die regardless, may not be murdered for the benefit of another. The doctor has two patients and must work in the best interests of each. If that’s what you mean by putting dogma first - so be it.

And if letting a mother develop an infection and die of septic shock because the staff waited for the fetal heartbeat to stop thus losing both lives when the mothers death was clearly preventable, instead of removing the fetus while it is still alive but dying and unable to be saved(as hard as that is) in order to save the mothers life, is your idea of ethical just because the Catholic Church says so - so be it. I just hope you and no one you care about end up in that situation because if you do, God help you.

 

[Rau]

And if letting a mother develop an infection and die…

All medical care operates within limits. That doctors may not intentionally kill an innocent is one. It just so happens that the State has decided that it’s ok to murder unborn children; Catholic moral teaching says that’s wrong.

In your view, are abortions in non-life-threatening situations immoral?

 

[AiyanaS]

All medical care operates within limits. That doctors may not intentionally kill an innocent is one. It just so happens that the State has decided that it’s ok to murder unborn children; Catholic moral teaching says that’s wrong.

And it’s wrong to let both die by doing nothing, that’s medical malpractice. Religion does not belong in healthcare. There is nothing morally right about letting a miscarrying mother lay on a hospital bed in pain, while an infection develops inside of her, as she’s crying out for help only to listen to the staff tells her the church mandates they can’t do anything until the fetus is technically dead. So the mother lies there crying, listening to her family angry at the staff, knowing that she will die and should have gone too a different hospital.

It’s ethics. You either lose one or you lose both. Its obvious where the Catholic stand. Both die if baby takes to long to die in utero. Like I said earlier, it’s easy for you to say it’s ok now, when it’s hypothetical, but could you really sit by as a nurse/doctor and watch a woman turn grey before you and die of sepsis just so you didn’t directly abort a baby that is going to die anyway? Or sit by a close friend and watch them die, and when they vent there frustrations tell them, they need to humble themselves and just accept there death? A death that’s preventable, just because the Church says so?!

 

[Rau]

…And it’s wrong to let both die by doing nothing…There is nothing morally right about letting a miscarrying mother lay on a hospital bed in pain, while an infection develops inside of her, as she’s crying out for help only to listen to the staff tells her the church mandates they can’t do anything until the fetus is technically dead. …

There is no obligation to “do nothing”… Medical staff can and will look after both patients - that’s the duty of medical staff. They just can’t set out to kill one of them.

It’s ethics.

The “ethics” that you speak of - the one that gives you the OK to murder the unborn child - actually goes by another name - “consequentialism”. It’s a system of ethics that holds that we only need to look to consequences to gauge the morality of acts. We can do anything, so long as the result is optimised in some sense. The Catholic Faith utterly rejects consequentialism - it holds that there are some acts which are so inherently evil they may never be done morally, no matter what. Murdering an innocent is one. such act. “The ends don’t justify the means”.

In your view, are abortions in non-life-threatening situations immoral?

 

[AiyanaS]

There is no obligation to “do nothing”… Medical staff can and will look after both patients - that’s the duty of medical staff.

Well, thats what they do, they sit around and wait until the fetus is no longer alive. Once your at a certain point in a miscarriage, the Catholic hospitals limit what doctors can and cannot do. If the baby is over 20 weeks, labor is induced/or C-section, but if the baby is unable to survive outside the womb, the only things medical staff can do, in line with Catholic teaching, is wait around for the baby to die naturally, in other words they do nothing.

They just can’t set out to kill one of them.

If, thats what it takes to save one life instead of losing both, than yes.

The “ethics” that you speak of - the one that gives you the OK to murder the unborn child - actually goes by another name - “consequentialism”. It’s a system of ethics that holds that we only need to look to consequences to gauge the morality of acts. We can do anything, so long as the result is optimised in some sense. The Catholic Faith utterly rejects consequentialism - it holds that there are some acts which are so inherently evil they may never be done morally, no matter what. Murdering an innocent is one. such act. “The ends don’t justify the means”.

Yes, you weigh the pros and the cons and make a decision. Its not murder when they are going to die anyway. Better too save one than lose both.

Remove fetus with heart still beating to prevent maternal death:
Pro, mother lives.
Cons, baby is quicker, because it is already dying.

Dont remove fetus:
Pros, congrats your in line with Catholic teaching
Cons, both mother and baby die, when the mothers death was preventable & doctors and nurses are scarred with the memory of a woman dying on there watch that shouldn’t have.

In your view, are abortions in non-life-threatening situations immoral?

Depends. Whats our idea of an abortion? Do you consider morning after pill post rape an abortion? because no one should ever have to carry the seed of a monster and bare there child, and have that reminder everyday for the rest of there life.

 

[Rau]

Well, thats what they do, they sit around and wait until the fetus is no longer alive.

They do the best they can for each, short of murdering either.

Yes, you weigh the pros and the cons and make a decision. Its not murder when they are going to die anyway. Better too save one than lose both.

The outcome is better - but at the cost of committing the moral act of murder. That one is dying does not mean shooting the person dead is not murder.

You describe consequentialism accurately - weigh up the consequences and choose the act judged to have best outcome. Doesn’t matter what you need to do to get there. I have exchanged thoughts on this with another on CAF in the past - he (an atheist) pointed out how consequentialism can “justify” murdering young children so long as that is thought to be a means to save more lives than you murder. He rationalised that this made the murdering quite OK - not wrong.

Do you consider morning after pill post rape an abortion? because no one should ever have to carry the seed of a monster and bare there child, and have that reminder everyday for the rest of there life.

You’ve dodged the question for a 2nd time.

I’m not across the operation of this particular pill. It is moral to prevent conception, since the rapists sperm in her body is simply a continuation of the violent violation of rape and it is proper to stop it. It is immoral to kill the innocent child for the sins of the father.

In your view, are abortions in non-life-threatening situations immoral?

 

[AiyanaS]

The outcome is better - but at the cost of committing the moral act of murder. That one is dying does not mean shooting the person dead is not murder.

No it’s not the same. The baby is dying and the infection caused by the miscarriage is killing the mother. The fetus precense inside the mother is killing the mother, thus it needs to be removed as its now a hazard too the mothers health.

You describe consequentialism accurately - weigh up the consequences and choose the act judged to have best outcome. Doesn’t matter what you need to do to get there. I have exchanged thoughts on this with another on CAF in the past - he (an atheist) pointed out how consequentialism can “justify” murdering young children so long as that is thought to be a means to save more lives than you murder. He rationalised that this made the murdering quite OK - not wrong.

And do you think it’s ok to sacrifice one life to spare a hundred others? Because that’s ethics, especially in war and situation where stakes are high, you need to make sacrifices. Ethics involve, a person choosing a decision by judging the best outcome as a result of there beliefs. It’s the difference between the guy who gives a homeless man $20 versus s job, neither are wrong it’s all down to what each guy believes. And I guess your belief is to let two lives end instead of one. In medical terms, that’s malpractice and spells out “major lawsuit”. Oneday though enough of them that go public might just get religion removed from healthcare & hospitals, where it belongs.
Rau;14156253:

You’ve dodged the question for a 2nd time.

In your view, are abortions in non-life-threatening situations immoral?

And you dodged my question.

Could you sit and watch a woman turn grey before you and die of sepsis in order to prevent a direct abortion of a baby who was going to die anyway? Could you live with yourself knowing her blood was on your head and that you sat by and did nothing to help prevent her death? Or could you sit by a close friend in the same situation and watch them turn grey and die before you from a miscarriage gone wrong. How would you feel if staff just left her there because the situation was so bad the only thing that could be done was remove the fetus that was still alive but dying? Would you still hold the attutide, accept you death?

My answer to yours is in non life threatening situations (excluding young pregnant children and severely deformed fetuses or fetuses with terrible and rare genetic diseases = painful existence), yes it’s immoral.

 

[Rau]

…And do you think it’s ok to sacrifice one life to spare a hundred others? Because that’s ethics, especially in war and situation where stakes are high, you need to make sacrifices. Ethics involve, a person choosing a decision by judging the best outcome as a result of there beliefs.

There is not a single branch of ethics. In the branch to which I subscribe, it is immoral to intentionally and directly kill an innocent anticipating other goods will result. This does not exclude accepting collateral damage as is commonplace in war. It does not exclude individuals sacrificing themselves. But it does exclude the kind of “balance of consequences” analysis you describe that pay no heed to the morality of the act done.

And you dodged my question.

I answered you clearly - the medical staff have two patients and must act in the best interests of each. If consequentialism is the ethical system to be applied, kill the baby. If murder is intrinsically evil, do the best you can without murdering.

My answer to yours is in non life threatening situations (excluding young pregnant children and severely deformed fetuses or fetuses with terrible and rare genetic diseases = painful existence), yes it’s immoral.

The vast majority of abortions are conducted for various kinds of convenience. I am glad that you agree murdering those babies is immoral.