Pro-Life answer about abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
Hey everyone, I need to know how to answer this question:

Is it morally licit for one to have an abortion if the child is threatening the mothers life for some reason?
 
With modern medicine, the answer to a life threatening medical condition is for the physicians to treat both the mother and the unborn child. The both deserve the best medical, emotional and spiritual support that our society can provide.
 
theCardinalbird said:
Is it morally licit for one to have an abortion if the child is threatening the mothers life for some reason?
Click to expand...
No, it is not – at least, not if the stated goal of the procedure is to end the child’s life. However, it is acceptable if the child dies as the result of action that (a) does not directly kill the child, and (b) would otherwise save the mother’s life, even if the child were not there. For instance, in ordinary circumstances, seeking out radiation would be very wrong for a mother; but if she has cancer, it is permissible, even though it could kill or harm the fetus.

It’s a lot more complicated than that, but that’s a first stab at answering your question. Have you heard of the Principle of Double Effect?
 
It is super easy to armchair these discussions. In real life, not every woman will be able to stand up to the pressure of the medical community, her partner/spouse, her family who may be insistent at a time when she is so very frightened.

I always want to know why someone is asking this question, because often it ends up that they or someone very close to them went through a gut wrenching decision. The last thing we need to do is to heap more guilt and pain on their heads.
 
theCardinalbird said:
Nope. I’m curious to know what it is though
Click to expand...
It says that actions that have intrinsically bad outcomes (like death) may be taken, but only under narrow circumstances. Here are the ones I remember, though more detail is available at Doctrine of Double Effect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

(1) The actor must not intend the bad effect.
(2) The bad effect must not be the MEANS of accomplishing the good effect.
(3) The good effect must be greater in its positive impact than the bad effect is in its negative impact.

There are other conditions, though. Sometimes people summarize the core of this by saying that “the ends do not justify the means.”
 
TheLittleLady said:
I always want to know why someone is asking this question, because often it ends up that they or someone very close to them went through a gut wrenching decision. The last thing we need to do is to heap more guilt and pain on their heads.
Click to expand...
For the record, the reason why i am asking this question is because I live in a world where people believe abortion is right in certain circumstances. So, in having an answer that agrees with the protection of life, which could give these people a different opinion and could possibly change their mind, there could be a chance to influence these people to have a pro-life mentality.
 
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

Helps in putting “double effect” in it’s proper perspective
 
Prodigal_Son said:
(1) The actor must not intend the bad effect.

(2) The bad effect must not be the MEANS of accomplishing the good effect.

(3) The good effect must be greater in its positive impact than the bad effect is in its negative impact.
Click to expand...
Interesting principle. Thank you 🙂
 
It is morally licit to treat a life threatening situation in a pregnant woman as long as the intention is to save the life of the mother. An ectopic pregnancy (a non viable pregnancy that can be a serious risk to the mother) is one example.
 
theCardinalbird said:
For the record, the reason why i am asking this question is because I live in a world where people believe abortion is right in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...
As do roughly 80% of people in the US according to the latest Gallup poll. http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Those of us who believe that direct abortion is never moral in any circumstance are a very, very small minority.

This is why when entering into this debate, charity and love must be our first thought.
 
Last edited:
This.

Abortion would not be licit. A treatment of the mother the the child would not survive would be licit.

I have yet to hear of a scenario where simply aborting a child would save the mother.

hawk
 
I know that there are many doctors who say that abortion is never necessary to save the mother’s life, but there are other doctors who disagree.
I understand that removal of the fallopian tube would not be considered abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, and seeking cancer treatment during pregnancy, even if it leads to the death of a child would also not be an abortion.
But I did read an article where a woman had pre-eclampsia. I’ve read that labour could be induced, but the doctor said the situation was too dangerous and labour would be too taxing for the mother, so an abortion was performed. In this situation, are there other options? I understand that directly killing the child would be considered wrong, but was the doctor wrong in claiming that abortion was the only way of saving the woman’s life?
And what if the woman is not far along enough in the pregnancy for labour to be induced?
Any doctors who can weigh in on this?
 
CoeurRempli said:
But I did read an article where a woman had pre-eclampsia. I’ve read that labour could be induced, but the doctor said the situation was too dangerous and labour would be too taxing for the mother, so an abortion was performed
Click to expand...
Article sounds a bit inaccurate.
How exactly is abortion less stressful than c section?
 
That is what I was wondering, but I am just repeating what some doctors are claiming. I’m not entirely convinced either, but not being a medical professional, do not want to say anything inaccurate. Many doctors advocating for abortion cite examples such as severe infection, heart failure and pre-eclampsia as situations where abortion is the only solution. Could antibiotics not work instead? And heart failure treatments? Are there situations where these will not work at all, but ending the pregnancy will? I know every situation is different and the doctor has to use their professional judgement, but I’m hoping to get some insight from other doctors, or maybe scientific articles so I can at least be more informed when discussing these issues.
 
Last edited:
From what I understand the principle of double effect does not come into play with intrinsically evil acts. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil. So one cannot deliberately kill the life of an innocent baby in womb to save the mothers life. No intention or circumstance could allow for that intrinsically evil act.

That is direct abortion but in some circumstances, such as the removal of the uterus due to cancer, an the child may die in the process, and this is indirect abortion. Abortion is bad either way since the result is the death of a child so with an indirect abortion the good circumstances must outweigh the bad.

The best goal would be to save both lives.
 
Last edited:
Yes you’re right. But I think when these doctors say “ending the pregnancy”, they are referring to abortion.
In that one case I referred too, the woman was told that she was not in the condition for labour to be induced and the risk of bleeding to death meant no C-section either. The only option she was given was an intact D&E…
 
Remember also that there is the condition that the act is not intrinsically evil (abortion is an intrinsic evil). This is an especially necessary consideration for situations where it is not particularly clear that a bad “effect” causes the good effect (with regard to condition 2 there)-- if the act is in itself evil it does not matter, it is not permissible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top