Moral question regarding abortion/young girls

[Melchior_1]

I have seen discussions involving abortion, and one area which people have brought up is in the event of a very young girl getting pregnant through means outside of her control (such as rape or a family member). The girl is clearly not able to handle a full-term pregnancy without there being lasting damage and trauma to her body. Many people I have seen have argued that in this case, a direct abortion is protecting the mother.

This is obviously an extreme case, however it does come up with a certain degree of frequency in these discussions. I will admit that I’m at a loss on how to respond sometimes; yes life begins at conception, yes a direct abortion ends the life of a child - but people then press the issue of the health of the young girl whose body would be ravaged and be threatened physically by carrying a child to full term. One person even turned things around and argued that Double Effect is in play, ending the life of the child to protect the health of the very young mother.

How would one respond to something such as this?

 

[pensmama87]

My first response is that “hard cases make bad law.”

The second is that the girl deserves the utmost compassion and best medical treatment available to ensure a safe pregnancy and delivery and for her to recover afterwards. If labor needs to be induced early or an emergency C-section needs to be performed to save her life, then that needs to happen - with excellent neonatal intensive care available for the baby if he or she survived delivery. With close monitoring and good prenatal care, the likelihood of her survival and her child’s is high.

There is absolutely nothing that warrants direct killing of the baby. It may be that emergency care for the mother would mean the child may not survive. But that is a very different course of action than deliberately killing the baby.

 

[1ke]

I have seen discussions involving abortion, and one area which people have brought up is in the event of a very young girl getting pregnant through means outside of her control (such as rape or a family member).

Yes, those who worship abortion on demand often pull this slight of hand by talking about the most rare of cases-- almost non-existent-- in order to justify no restrictions whatsoever.

The girl is clearly not able to handle a full-term pregnancy without there being lasting damage and trauma to her body.

This is an assumption, not a fact.

Many people I have seen have argued that in this case, a direct abortion is protecting the mother.

One may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good. Abortion is always wrong. There aren’t any conditions or situations that can make it right.

This is obviously an extreme case, however it does come up with a certain degree of frequency in these discussions.

Yes, because it is a red herring. A logical fallacy designed to stop you from discussing the ACTUAL argument and shut you up.

I will admit that I’m at a loss on how to respond

In these very hard cases we have two victims. we must do all we can to do right by both of them. Killing one of them is not a solution.

OR

Ok, so we both agree then that abortion should be illegal. I will concede that in order to reach such a common sense agreement that all other abortions should be outlawed that perhaps we could include a clause specific to rape victims under the age of 13 who also become pregnant.

See how quickly they sputter in outrage that all other abortions should NOT be outlawed.

• but people then press the issue of the health of the young girl whose body would be ravaged and be threatened physically

Except that young girls have babies every day, in many third world countries where they marry very young-- and this is a cultural expectation. These are not women who would seek abortions. Most maternal deaths are due to poor medical facilities, their own health before pregnancy + prenatal care, and infections. There are some real risks, but most are manageable. It takes a lot of time and effort to change a culture where girls are given as brides very young. This is a good place to focus time and energy rather than on killing babies.

And even the actual young girl being exploited by the abortion-on-demand crowd **did **in fact carry her child to term-- the 11 year old in Paraguay didn’t have an abortion. She had a baby.

. One person even turned things around and argued that Double Effect is in play, ending the life of the child to protect the health of the very young mother

this is a person who doesn’t understand double effect. They need to study double effect more carefully. The first prong of the test for double effect is that the action must itself be morally good or morally neutral. Abortion can never pass that first test.

How would one respond to something such as this?

Probably with an eye roll because i’m so weary of it. but what I’ve written above would probably be better.

I suggest you arm yourself with some facts about these so-called doomed young girls who are pregnant. and getting Randy Alcorn’s book on Pro Life arguments is probably a good idea too.

 

[Russell_SA]

I have seen discussions involving abortion, and one area which people have brought up is in the event of a very young girl getting pregnant through means outside of her control (such as rape or a family member). The girl is clearly not able to handle a full-term pregnancy without there being lasting damage and trauma to her body. Many people I have seen have argued that in this case, a direct abortion is protecting the mother.

This is obviously an extreme case, however it does come up with a certain degree of frequency in these discussions. I will admit that I’m at a loss on how to respond sometimes; yes life begins at conception, yes a direct abortion ends the life of a child - but people then press the issue of the health of the young girl whose body would be ravaged and be threatened physically by carrying a child to full term. One person even turned things around and argued that Double Effect is in play, ending the life of the child to protect the health of the very young mother.

How would one respond to something such as this?

So it’s an argument of degree of physical and emotional damage to the mother about this issue. The emotional damage can be mitigated if she feels that her social environment is solidly guarding her from outside socially emotional attacks. Everyone understands the opinion of your family and friends means more to us than strangers. Physical damage can be mitigated through C-section instead of traditional birth.

But I don’t see this argument as the true crux of the abortion question, it really comes down to right to life vs right to bodily autonomy. Once someone is born, they have a right to life. This is why parents can be held legally accountable for not caring for their children. But the child does not have a right to the use of their parent’s body in support of it’s life. For instance, if the child needs a blood donation, kidney, or any part of a body that the parents could provide, the parent has to give consent of the use of the parent’s body for the child to survive. The parent has a right to refuse to allow their organs, blood, or any part of their body to be used to keep their child alive. But this is not the case when the child is still in the womb. So the argument goes, a special group of people, the fetus, has a right that no one else has, the right to someone else’s body to keep the fetus alive at the expense of someone else’s right to bodily autonomy. It’s a case of special rules for one group of people that no one else has a right to, even our deceased. The deceased still have to give consent through a will to have their organs donated to save someone else’s life. That’s where I see the problem in the abortion discussion at this point.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I have seen discussions involving abortion, and one area which people have brought up is in the event of a very young girl getting pregnant through means outside of her control (such as rape or a family member). The girl is clearly not able to handle a full-term pregnancy without there being lasting damage and trauma to her body. Many people I have seen have argued that in this case, a direct abortion is protecting the mother.

This is obviously an extreme case, however it does come up with a certain degree of frequency in these discussions. I will admit that I’m at a loss on how to respond sometimes; yes life begins at conception, yes a direct abortion ends the life of a child - but people then press the issue of the health of the young girl whose body would be ravaged and be threatened physically by carrying a child to full term. One person even turned things around and argued that Double Effect is in play, ending the life of the child to protect the health of the very young mother.

How would one respond to something such as this?

This argument operates under the erroneous assumption that one human life can be worth more than another because the other human life is not really a human being at all. It’s the same argument that Nazis and southern US slaveholders made…“they are sub-human”.

In the OP scenario, the girl’s life is not worth more than the unborn’s life, but a pro-choice argument sometimes pre-supposes that the unborn is not to be considered a human being until they are born or at a certain gestation like 6-8 months…a completely illogical argument.

Supposing that one makes the OP’s argument but admits that the unborn is a human being at any gestation. If their argument states that the health of the young girl is the primary issue, then wouldn’t their argument be opposed to itself if they declared the unborn’s life to be less important than the young girl’s life by suggesting that it be aborted? Why sacrifice the baby to save the girl when the girl could be sacrificed in order to have the baby? This argument is a also non-sensical.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So it’s an argument of degree of physical and emotional damage to the mother about this issue. The emotional damage can be mitigated if she feels that her social environment is solidly guarding her from outside socially emotional attacks. Everyone understands the opinion of your family and friends means more to us than strangers. Physical damage can be mitigated through C-section instead of traditional birth.

But I don’t see this argument as the true crux of the abortion question, it really comes down to right to life vs right to bodily autonomy. Once someone is born, they have a right to life. This is why parents can be held legally accountable for not caring for their children. But the child does not have a right to the use of their parent’s body in support of it’s life. For instance, if the child needs a blood donation, kidney, or any part of a body that the parents could provide, the parent has to give consent of the use of the parent’s body for the child to survive. The parent has a right to refuse to allow their organs, blood, or any part of their body to be used to keep their child alive. But this is not the case when the child is still in the womb. So the argument goes, a special group of people, the fetus, has a right that no one else has, the right to someone else’s body to keep the fetus alive at the expense of someone else’s right to bodily autonomy. It’s a case of special rules for one group of people that no one else has a right to, even our deceased. The deceased still have to give consent through a will to have their organs donated to save someone else’s life. That’s where I see the problem in the abortion discussion at this point.

In utero, the baby is physically connected to it’s mother. Your comparing ‘disconnecting’(abortion), to ‘connecting’(forced to save someone your not already physically connected to). Does a conjoined twin have a right to kill the other in order to be free of them?

Anyway, it’s not the crux of your argument anyway so why not drop the analogy and just stick with your point - which I would think is this:

“So the argument goes, a special group of people, the fetus, has a right that no one else has, the right to someone else’s body to keep the fetus alive at the expense of someone else’s right to bodily autonomy.”

 

[Russell_SA]

In utero, the baby is physically connected to it’s mother. Your comparing ‘disconnecting’(abortion), to ‘connecting’(forced to save someone your not already physically connected to). Does a conjoined twin have a right to kill the other in order to be free of them?

I don’t know the argument in the case for conjoined twins. That takes a back and forth discussion.

I believe the pro-choice movement distinguishes the point of forced disconnection and killing the fetus. The parent is making a choice about how their body is to be used that results in the death of someone else. They equate the idea of not being forced to donate their body to save someone who will die without that donation. Such as donating the parent’s bone marrow to save their child, will result in the death of their child, naturally anyways. The pro choice movement sees this situation as the same as “disconnecting” from the fetus. The parent is deciding to not have their body used to save the life of their child, which results in the death of their child. The individual never looses the right to have their body used to save the life of someone else even if that person is already hooked up to them and even if the parent’s actions resulted in the person being hooked up to them or the child needing to survive by being hooked up to them, such as a drunk driver hitting bystanders. Or do you see it differently?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have seen discussions involving abortion, and one area which people have brought up is in the event of a very young girl getting pregnant through means outside of her control (such as rape or a family member). The girl is clearly not able to handle a full-term pregnancy without there being lasting damage and trauma to her body. Many people I have seen have argued that in this case, a direct abortion is protecting the mother.

This is obviously an extreme case, however it does come up with a certain degree of frequency in these discussions. I will admit that I’m at a loss on how to respond sometimes; yes life begins at conception, yes a direct abortion ends the life of a child - but people then press the issue of the health of the young girl whose body would be ravaged and be threatened physically by carrying a child to full term. One person even turned things around and argued that Double Effect is in play, ending the life of the child to protect the health of the very young mother.

How would one respond to something such as this?

It could be the abortion is the more harmful to the girl long term.
It’s rare.
You could go strictly secular and speak of humans as a species that has a mammal procreation method. It’s only our societal, theological and even secular society that puts taboos on procreation. No one makes these arguments with dogs or cats…

But that is a sick road to go down. It’s all really just debate though. So I guess it’s fair game. It’s doubtful one personally knows such a rare case.

 

[tjaugustine]

We are using an example of organ donation laws as an argument in this discussion. But what if we look on the situation from the point of other laws? Isn’t it that when someone is under the attack they have right to be protected, by the police, army or even bystanders under laws of just force etc.? Say that young girl, she surely had right to be protected from the rapist; even at the cost of the assailant’s health or life. But we would decline the right of the child to protection - not even requiring such extreme actions, most probably - from someone intending to hurt him/her. (in this scenario the doctor about to carry an abortion, the action leading to death, with clear intent and at full mental faculties).

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t know the argument in the case for conjoined twins. That takes a back and forth discussion.

I believe the pro-choice movement distinguishes the point of forced disconnection and killing the fetus. The parent is making a choice about how their body is to be used that results in the death of someone else. They equate the idea of not being forced to donate their body to save someone who will die without that donation. Such as donating the parent’s bone marrow to save their child, will result in the death of their child, naturally anyways. The pro choice movement sees this situation as the same as “disconnecting” from the fetus. The parent is deciding to not have their body used to save the life of their child, which results in the death of their child. The individual never looses the right to have their body used to save the life of someone else even if that person is already hooked up to them and even if the parent’s actions resulted in the person being hooked up to them or the child needing to survive by being hooked up to them, such as a drunk driver hitting bystanders. Or do you see it differently?

I do see it differently.

Women giving birth has been a part of reality since the beginning of humanity. It’s a natural process because of which we exist. OTOH, the pro-choice scenario about being forced to give your body to someone else so that they can live is pure fantasy. Using fantastic scenario’s to try to justify taking another person’s life just shows how little the pro-choice movement has to justify it’s position.

Pregnancy is a natural part of life. Me being drugged and hooked up to another person so they can use my kidneys is not a natural part of life.

 

[edwest2]

Having worked at a hospital, I saw a pregnant 12 year old with her mother. There was no reason for me to feel anything but compassion. The girl was being care for. That was all that mattered. Her body would do the rest.

Ed

 

[tjaugustine]

edwest2 reminded me of another point: at young age it will not be the girl making the choice but her parents. Now where is the freedom of choice then? What if the girl wants to have the baby but her parents do not - what will prevail, the childs rights, girls rights or parents law given decision making rights over minor? This is tough. And as said by other poster, these are arguments mostly to diverge disucssions from clear situations where the only one harmed is the baby (with adult mother, etc.)

 

[edwest2]

edwest2 reminded me of another point: at young age it will not be the girl making the choice but her parents. Now where is the freedom of choice then? What if the girl wants to have the baby but her parents do not - what will prevail, the childs rights, girls rights or parents law given decision making rights over minor? This is tough. And as said by other poster, these are arguments mostly to diverge disucssions from clear situations where the only one harmed is the baby (with adult mother, etc.)

Doing what’s best for the child, even though she is pregnant, has always been the parents’ responsibility. She is too young, mentally and emotionally, to fully know what it means to have a baby.

Ed

 

[JanetF]

My first response is that “hard cases make bad law.”

The second is that the girl deserves the utmost compassion and best medical treatment available to ensure a safe pregnancy and delivery and for her to recover afterwards. If labor needs to be induced early or an emergency C-section needs to be performed to save her life, then that needs to happen - with excellent neonatal intensive care available for the baby if he or she survived delivery. With close monitoring and good prenatal care, the likelihood of her survival and her child’s is high.

There is absolutely nothing that warrants direct killing of the baby. It may be that emergency care for the mother would mean the child may not survive. But that is a very different course of action than deliberately killing the baby.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[BornInMarch]

I have seen discussions involving abortion, and one area which people have brought up is in the event of a very young girl getting pregnant through means outside of her control (such as rape or a family member). The girl is clearly not able to handle a full-term pregnancy without there being lasting damage and trauma to her body. Many people I have seen have argued that in this case, a direct abortion is protecting the mother.

This is obviously an extreme case, however it does come up with a certain degree of frequency in these discussions. I will admit that I’m at a loss on how to respond sometimes; yes life begins at conception, yes a direct abortion ends the life of a child - but people then press the issue of the health of the young girl whose body would be ravaged and be threatened physically by carrying a child to full term. One person even turned things around and argued that Double Effect is in play, ending the life of the child to protect the health of the very young mother.

How would one respond to something such as this?

The unborn child endangering its mother is still a human being deserving of protection.

It also helps to point out that modern medicine is at the point where women dying in childbirth is no longer a problem (in fact that’s the exact reason why therapeutic abortion is no longer legal in Chile).

 

[SusanneT]

My first response is that “hard cases make bad law.”

The second is that the girl deserves the utmost compassion and best medical treatment available to ensure a safe pregnancy and delivery and for her to recover afterwards. If labor needs to be induced early or an emergency C-section needs to be performed to save her life, then that needs to happen - with excellent neonatal intensive care available for the baby if he or she survived delivery. With close monitoring and good prenatal care, the likelihood of her survival and her child’s is high.

There is absolutely nothing that warrants direct killing of the baby. It may be that emergency care for the mother would mean the child may not survive. But that is a very different course of action than deliberately killing the baby.

Wonderfully well explained.

The circumstances under which the girl became pregnant are certainly a terrible sin. But a pregnant woman, however she became pregnant is not one, but two people and any medical intervention should recognise the rights and interests of both mother and child. Deliberate abortion is not excused by any circumstances.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

One may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

I think you may need to explain this better.
There are indeed specific occasions where one may do something evil in order to bring about something good.

Killing the intruder in my house who wields a knife to my wife is evil if one believes “Thou shall not kill” refers to this grave matter.
Yet in self defence it may be done if circumstances demand it.

This is a person who doesn’t understand double effect. They need to study double effect more carefully. The first prong of the test for double effect is that the action must itself be morally good or morally neutral. Abortion can never pass that first test.

This needs careful unpacking too I think.
I don’t think that removing the blockage in a fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy) is exactly neutral. Nor is killing my attacker in self defence.
So I am not sure if the first prong is the whole basis for denying use of PODE here even if it were true a 12 year old is not ready to have a baby biologically (which is largely nonsense of course).

I suspect it is the far more likely about the more controversial 3rd (or 4th) “prong” which some authors state as “not going through the indirectly chosen lesser/equal evil deed” to achieve the directly chosen greater “good deed.”

Yet this rationale is difficult to understand in the two valid forms of PODE mentioned above (lethal self defence and ectopics). And interestingly Aquinas never formulated that 4th prong in his explanations.

In the end we just have to abide by the decisions of the Church on these matters even if we don’t have a 100% satisfactory theological explanation it seems to me.

 

[edwest2]

About Ectopic Pregnancies.

catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/when-pregnancy-goes-awry-ectopic-pregnancies.html

Ed

 

[Rau]

…Killing the intruder in my house who wields a knife to my wife is evil if one believes “Thou shall not kill” refers to this grave matter.

Clearly it does not forbid the act which saw that intruder die, if that act was as Your scenario suggests. The negative precepts - properly understood - are absolute and know no exceptions. The evil you reference is the physical evil manifest in the dead intruder. But there was not evil (moral) in the act itself. Evil need not be done to stop the intruder, even when what is done causes his death.

Readers should note that the PODE is not some additional moral “rule”, that establishes exceptions to otherwise clear rules, but rather is merely a tool to aid understanding or analysis.

 

[Rau]

…I don’t think that removing the blockage in a fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy) is exactly neutral. Nor is killing my attacker in self defence.

It would be wrong to assert that the 2 scenarios are analogous in respect of their moral dimensions. The attacker should be stopped, or the wife protected, by means which do not involve doing evil, and which cause the least harm. In some circumstances, these conditions are met by an act fatal to the attacker.

In the case of the ectopic pregnancy, destroying the child is not the only means compatible with saving the mother. Another act is possible which saves the mother and is not directed to harming the child. [There are no options for helping/saving the child.]. Ectopic pregnancy treatment always challenge the pragmatic self since the practical/observable outcomes - in terms of “final harm caused” - of the licit treatment seem greater than that of the illicit treatment.