Pro-Life answer about abortion

[Edward_H]

Marvelous quote, contribution. Thank you.

 

[dochawk]

From what I understand the principle of double effect does not come into play with intrinsically evil acts. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil.

This is correct on both accounts

Evil cannot be committed to perform good.

hawk

 

[TheLittleLady]

In this situation, are there other options?

People do not realize that an abortion is as tough on the body as childbirth, you simply give birth to a dead child instead of a living one.

If mom or baby is in danger, a C-section is the usual method to deliver.

 

[JanetF]

The answer is no. And…

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.

 

[JanetF]

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?

Women with pre-eclampsia are usually watched very closely and oftentimes have c-sections. Most competent OBGYNs will treat the condition until such a time as the baby can be born.

 

[Raxus]

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.

Then society needs to turn away from murder as a viable option, and ever more toward supporting those frightened mothers. There are many resources in place already.

Murder is murder.

 

[TheLittleLady]

There are many resources in place already.

Today a mother in a doctor’s office or hospital clinic in your town will have an ultrasound that reveals a serious problem. This family has young children at home, one of these kids has autism, dad works two jobs to keep a roof over their heads, they have no extended family.

The doctor reading the ultrasound tells this couple that the medical situation is dire and that continuing the pregnancy puts her life in jeopardy and that the child will be born with serious, lifelong medical needs. The doctor advises them to terminate the pregnancy because of the risk. Doc reassures them that they are young and can have more children.

She is lying there on the table, the doctor says they need to make a decision right now. Mom is terrified to die and leave her husband as a widower with young children when he cannot afford a nanny or daycare for the kids. How can he raise the children on his own? And a newborn, a special needs newborn, there is no way he can balance all of this and keep a roof overhead and food on the table.

I am interested to know, what resources are in place already for this family AND how well are these resources advertised to the community?

 

[Monica83]

Yes and an abortion would take longer than a c section.

 

[LittleFlower378]

This abortionist Doctor is a deceiving murderer.

We could put some resources out there for this couple but before that there must be the resource of faith in God and his providence and the following of the Commandments. Without that, resources wont matter.

 

[Monica83]

Having a child with a genetic disorder doesn’t put the mother’s life in dire risk. Could you be more specific on the diagnosis so that I know this has ever been a real life case?

 

[TheLittleLady]

No, a direct abortion is never moral. For an ectopic pregnancy the moral treatment is to remove the tube that contains the small embryo. The embryo cannot at this time be transplanted into the uterus, in fact, the embryo has likely died before the “tubal” pregnancy is even discovered. This is not a direct abortion.

What is a direct abortion is when the ectopic pregnancy is discovered, the tube is sliced open and the tiny embryo is “scraped out”. Unless we can confirm the embryo is already dead, this would be a direct abortion.

Again, this is a situation where the mother is going to be in fear for her life and she may be told that the scraping technique is the only way to save her life.

 

[Arwing]

I think the only exception would be a “tubular pregnancy”.

In this case it may be permitted to perform treatment that results in the baby’s death, but it isn’t an exception allowing for direct abortion, i.e. killing the baby to terminate the pregnancy. Indeed there are no exceptions whatsoever allowing for direct abortion.

 

[TheLittleLady]

My point is not specifics of a case, but, the above poster said there are resources in place for moms/couples who receive a devastating diagnoses and are terrified that mom will die unless the pregnancy is terminated.

I want to know what resources are in place for the terrified parent.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I’m simply asking the poster who claimed “resources in place” to educate me on the details of those resources.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I agree not a bad Idea to have help for people in that situation.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Is it morally licit for one to have an abortion if the child is threatening the mothers life for some reason?

If you can the power to save both, then you should. If that is not feasible, then it is licit to take actions that may cause miscarriage/stillbirth as a side effect. You never directly attack the baby, though.

 

[JanetF]

There are crisis pregnancy centers in or close to most communities in the US. The Doctor would likely be able to refer the parents to the resources available, then there’s the March of Dimes, and their local parish office. One call to the church secretary and resources for taking care of the hypothetical baby after mom dies would be lined up in no time.

 

[AdamP88]

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?

Abortion in inherently evil, therefore can never be used in any circumstances.
Abortion = the direct and intentional killing of the unborn baby.

It could be ok to induce the baby early, even if it’s not viable, in certain ciscumstances.

Also in the case of ectopic pregnancy it can be ok to perform a surgery to save the mother, the side effect of which is to end the baby’s life.

 

[CoeurRempli]

Doesn’t the earliest onset of pre-eclampsia not present itself until later in the 2nd trimester? That would be around 24 -28 weeks, right? If so, I’m curious as to why an abortion would even be remotely considered as a better option than a C-Section? Even if there were other factors, such as HELPP or some genetic clotting disorder, an abortion at that stage would still produce quite a bit of bleeding.

Women with pre-eclampsia are usually watched very closely and oftentimes have c-sections. Most competent OBGYNs will treat the condition until such a time as the baby can be born.

People do not realize that an abortion is as tough on the body as childbirth, you simply give birth to a dead child instead of a living one.

If mom or baby is in danger, a C-section is the usual method to deliver.

I have the same thoughts/ questions, which is why I am trying to understand why some doctors would argue otherwise.

 

[simonjosiah1]

They can take the baby out without directly killing it, if it means both mum and baby dies (from me own experience and understanding)