Mitigating circumstances of abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cath91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cath91

Guest
Hi everyone,

Sorry if something like this has been discussed on this forum before, I’m new here! I was hoping for some informed opinions on this issue…

I was at home over Christmas and got into a discussion with my mother over abortion. I’m 100% pro-life, while in her opinion abortion is certainly wrong, but there are ‘mitigating circumstances’ that mean it should be legal, such as rape and medical conditions. With regards to rape, I argued that it is not the child’s fault and it does not deserve to die, not to mention that killing the baby will not instantly emotionally heal the woman and will likely only increase her trauma.

She then mentioned circumstances in which, say, a woman had several children already, and while pregnant discovered that she had a life-threatening condition which they could not treat without the loss of the child. Is it right to leave those existing children without a mother? My instinct is that it is no less murder… but obviously it is a terrible circumstance no matter what. What do you all think- how do you argue a pro-life sentiment faced with such a lose-lose situation?
 
cath91 said:
She then mentioned circumstances in which, say, a woman had several children already, and while pregnant discovered that she had a life-threatening condition which they could not treat without the loss of the child. Is it right to leave those existing children without a mother? My instinct is that it is no less murder… but obviously it is a terrible circumstance no matter what. What do you all think- how do you argue a pro-life sentiment faced with such a lose-lose situation?
Click to expand...
Does the treatment involve directly terminating the pregnancy or would the treatment possibly have the side effect of endangering and killing the child? (I’ve got the principal of double effect in mind).
 
Well, sometimes in life there are lose-lose situations. I don’t want to sound blunt, but I can be now. When you’re having that conversation, you need to obviously be very understanding.

But, while we must have love for these people, we can’t let emotion make us compromise a hard truth. The hard truth is that if that mother were to die in child birth, and those children would obviously lose her, that would be no one’s fault. Did any sin take place there? No.
A terrible tragedy took place, but no human was responsible for it.

If that woman were to procure an abortion, then a human life would have been murdered, and other human beings would be responsible… making them murderers, or accomplices, or complicit in murder. That is the sin of abortion, it falls under the commandment “Thou shall not kill”.

Tragedies happen, and sometimes we can do nothing to stop it. The tragedy of abortion is something that we can ALWAYS do something to stop.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Does the treatment involve directly terminating the pregnancy or would the treatment possibly have the side effect of endangering and killing the child? (I’ve got the principal of double effect in mind).
Click to expand...
I’m not sure- I should clarify that this all theoretical! I guess either situation, but we were particularly discussing the first.
 
RC_Sojourner said:
Well, sometimes in life there are lose-lose situations. I don’t want to sound blunt, but I can be now. When you’re having that conversation, you need to obviously be very understanding.

But, while we must have love for these people, we can’t let emotion make us compromise a hard truth. The hard truth is that if that mother were to die in child birth, and those children would obviously lose her, that would be no one’s fault. Did any sin take place there? No.
A terrible tragedy took place, but no human was responsible for it.

If that woman were to procure an abortion, then a human life would have been murdered, and other human beings would be responsible… making them murderers, or accomplices, or complicit in murder. That is the sin of abortion, it falls under the commandment “Thou shall not kill”.

Tragedies happen, and sometimes we can do nothing to stop it. The tragedy of abortion is something that we can ALWAYS do something to stop.
Click to expand...
Right, that’s what I think too. Thank you for articulating that so perfectly! It is an awful situation, either way.
 
cath91 said:
Hi everyone,

Sorry if something like this has been discussed on this forum before, I’m new here! I was hoping for some informed opinions on this issue…

I was at home over Christmas and got into a discussion with my mother over abortion. I’m 100% pro-life, while in her opinion abortion is certainly wrong, but there are ‘mitigating circumstances’ that mean it should be legal, such as rape and medical conditions. With regards to rape, I argued that it is not the child’s fault and it does not deserve to die, not to mention that killing the baby will not instantly emotionally heal the woman and will likely only increase her trauma.

She then mentioned circumstances in which, say, a woman had several children already, and while pregnant discovered that she had a life-threatening condition which they could not treat without the loss of the child. Is it right to leave those existing children without a mother? My instinct is that it is no less murder… but obviously it is a terrible circumstance no matter what. What do you all think- how do you argue a pro-life sentiment faced with such a lose-lose situation?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, if a pregnant woman has a life threatenting illness or injury that cannot be treated without the possible loss of the child, she could have the condition treated. However, under no conditions could the child be aborted first. But if there were a spontaneous abortion as a side effect of the Mother’s medical treatment, that would not be a sin. By the same reasoning, if the child should die in the womb as a result of the medical remedy, that would not be a sin either.

Linus2nd
 
What life threatening condition exists that would mean the mother’s life would be more endangered more if she carried on with the pregnancy than have an abortion?

According to Priests for Life, Fr Frank Pavone I believe:
There is no medical situation whose only solution is a direct abortion, as many doctors have testified.
Click to expand...
priestsforlife.org/questions/questionsandanswers.htm

Over 140 professionals in gynecology, obstetrics, molecular epidemiology and mental health met at the International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare in 2012, and they came out with Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare. It reads:
As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
Click to expand...
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
Click to expand...
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.
Click to expand...
dublindeclaration.com

Ooncologist Dr John Crown tweeted, ‘I don’t think I ever had a case where abortion was necessary to save mom.’

twitter.com/ProfJohnCrown/status/172100435090489346
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top