Revisiting Sr. McBride vs. Olmstead hospital abortion case

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But the Church allows for the removal of a cancerous uterus of a pregnant woman or the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, both of which result in the death of the baby. By the logic of what you’ve posted here, those two things should not be allowed either. You should just let nature take its course and pray for a miracle. But those two things are allowed. Even though the baby dies.

Really, truly, I understand the whole direct abortion vs. indirect abortion concept. But when real lives are on the line…and you mandate that both have to die when only one had to die…I hope everyone can at least see where that doesn’t seem “pro-life.” It’s more accurately “anti-direct killing.”
 
Last edited:
Psalm30 said:
that the Church puts more value on avoiding direct killing than on actual human life?
Click to expand...
No, it finds the failure to save a life less immoral than the direct ending of another. It places human life at a level where its ending by direct action is the worst possible thing to do in this situation.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
The object, she asserts, was the removal of the placenta, not the death of the child.
Click to expand...
I read the article because this case interests me. M. Therese Lysaught wrote, “The moral object of the intervention was to save the life of the mother.” This is where her argument fails, in my opinion. Morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen, the end in view or the intention, and the circumstances. She is confusing the moral object with the end (or intention).

The taking of an innocent life is an act that is always wrong, even if the end is good. One cannot use war or self-defense killing as both of those are not about innocent people.

You brought up a good point that a step in the procedure is to directly kill the fetus, a point in which she took exception to in her argument. She really tried to whitewash that part and even seemed to argue that the NCBC was trying to use graphic terms to overstate what occurred. Nonsense.

The intentional killing of innocent human life is always intrinsically evil, no matter the end (or intention).
 
Last edited:
Psalm30 said:
You say the child in the boat has no chance, but you’re making that up to win the argument. It’s not a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you would resist the idea if the logic functions.
Psalm30 said:
Jesus Himself has plenty to say about following the letter of the law at the expense of compassion.
Click to expand...
Not really, compassion is part of the law, some people were just not following that part.
 
Last edited:
Psalm30 said:
Take the cancerous uterus scenario. It’s okay to remove the uterus even though the baby dies. Why?
Click to expand...
The removal of the diseased organ does not directly attack the child.
Psalm30 said:
But what about St. Gianna Molla?
Click to expand...
The great saint had the grace of heroic virtue.
Psalm30 said:
Why? Because one is “indirect” and the other is “direct.” Sorry, but when real lives are on the line, it’s not that simple. It’s letting people die based on a technicality, and Jesus Himself has plenty to say about following the letter of the law at the expense of compassion.
Click to expand...
Either the church’s teaching has the principles of morality correct or she does not. I believe she does.
 
o_mlly said:
Either the church’s teaching has the principles of morality correct or she does not. I believe she does.
Click to expand...
I’m going to repeat something I said earlier in this thread: Let me be clear—I hate abortion. I hate it to the core. I can’t stand the whole “my body my choice” mumbo jumbo. I can’t stand people who carry on about how they personally wouldn’t have an abortion but don’t want to “impose their views on others” because everyone should be allowed to “do what’s best for them.” I don’t think abortion is okay in the case of r*pe. And, when there are medical issues, I think doctors need to work to save both mother and baby, if possible.

What I have a problem with is when the death of the baby is inevitable —it’s going to happen no matter what—it should be permissible to save the one you can.
 
I would do the same if I were that mother.

However if you were the doctor what would you have done if in spite of your best efforts you couldn’t save both?

Would you tell the woman’s family that her death was inevitable because the baby could lose its life if an alternative procedure were to be used? An alternative procedure that could save the mother’s life but not the baby’s? That the only ethical scenario left would result in two deaths?
 
Last edited:
So what would you do if you were the doctor and were presented with this scenario?

Do you stop treating her and wait until she dies?

This is not a malicious statement. I wouldn’t know what I would do if I were in this position.

It’s easy to talk in theory but just letting a patient die would go against my training.
 
Last edited:
Psalm30 said:
What I have a problem with is when the death of the baby is inevitable —it’s going to happen no matter what—it should be permissible to save the one you can.
Click to expand...
Everyone’s death is inevitable. The death of the child is highly probable as is the mother’s. However, we must love God before our own or ourselves. To suffer a premature death is a terrible cross. But to offend God is worse. We must pray for the grace to carry the cross that falls to us.
 
A friend of mine lost her mother due to the same condition described in the OP.

The doctor chose not to terminate her mother’s pregnancy. The pregnancy continued but her mother died an hour after my friend was born.

She left behind a husband and 8 children, the youngest being my friend.
 
Sarcelle said:
A friend of mine lost her mother due to the same condition described in the OP.

The doctor chose not to terminate her mother’s pregnancy. The pregnancy continued but her mother died an hour after my friend was born.

She left behind a husband and 8 children, the youngest being my friend.
Click to expand...
If the child has a chance of surviving that makes it different. Maybe your friend’s mother had a less severe version of the condition?
 
Yes she did. It wasn’t as extreme as in the case the OP described.

There was a good chance of my friend surviving the birth. For her mother, the chances were not as good.

Her mother chose to continue with the pregnancy in spite of the risk to her life.
 
Sarcelle said:
Yes she did. It wasn’t as extreme as in the case the OP described.

There was a good chance of my friend surviving the birth. For her mother, the chances were not as good.

Her mother chose to continue with the pregnancy in spite of the risk to her life.
Click to expand...
I think everyone acted rightly in your friend’s case. From what I know, I don’t believe the case with Sister McBride was the same as far as the probability of the baby being able to survive the birth.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Everyone’s death is inevitable. The death of the child is highly probable as is the mother’s. However, we must love God before our own or ourselves. To suffer a premature death is a terrible cross. But to offend God is worse. We must pray for the grace to carry the cross that falls to us.
Click to expand...
And in the case of a cancerous uterus, this heroic bearing of the cross is not necessary, even though the removal of the uterus results in the death of the child. You don’t seem to understand the problem I have with all of this. What I do not agree with is that the direct killing vs. indirect killing makes a difference as to whether it’s allowed to do or not, when lives are on the line. I understand that you cannot do evil to achieve good. But to me, it’s splitting hairs to say that the death of the baby is an “unintended side effect” of removing the diseased uterus and therefore not inherently evil. You KNOW the baby will die but you do it anyway, to save the mother. How is this not sacrificing the child to save the mother? As in the case of St. Gianna, she refused to allow the hysterectomy and therefore she died but the baby survived. But what if she HADN’T refused the hysterectomy? Then the BABY would have died and SHE would have at least had a better chance at survival. How would that not be trading a life for a life? How would that not be saying that the mother’s life is more valuable than the child’s? But this is considered perfectly fine by the Church.

Put another way, I like CanjunJoy’s response where she said she wouldn’t allow for a hysterectomy, just as St. Gianna Molla did. This makes things consistent.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top