South Dakota Abortion law

[Dan-Man916]

PIERRE, S.D. Mar 6, 2006 (AP)— Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota.

There is a clause in there for exceptions for cases of the “life of the Mother”.

What does the Catholic Church say about such things?

 

[mikew262]

PIERRE, S.D. Mar 6, 2006 (AP)— Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota.

There is a clause in there for exceptions for cases of the “life of the Mother”.

What does the Catholic Church say about such things?

CC says there is no “Life of the Mother” exception. If the mother dies, then the mother dies. There is to be no abortion, under any circumstances. Yes, that’s cold, but that’s the way the Church sees it.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Actually, the Catholic church’s position is not cold.
The church’s position is to try to save the life of BOTH patients,
the mother and the baby.

And seriously, under what circumstances is it ever “necessary” to KILL the baby in order to save the mother??

Jaypeeto3

 

[Dan-Man916]

what i am confused about is the principle of the double effect.

Are the medical procedures, such as a DNC, applicable under the double effect.

Does anyone know where I can read more about this.
How does a Catholic hospital deal with these issues, such as a rape?

 

[mikew262]

Jaypeeto3:

Actually, the Catholic church’s position is not cold.
The church’s position is to try to save the life of BOTH patients,
the mother and the baby.

And seriously, under what circumstances is it ever “necessary” to KILL the baby in order to save the mother??

Jaypeeto3

I stand corrected. You are right. Church says you should try to save both.

I suppose what is cold (as in cold hard truth) about it is that church doctrine gives you no leeway. If both mother and baby will surely die in a particular situation, but one could be saved, if the other died, there is no “out”, except to plan 2 funerals instead of one.

 

[DreadVandal]

According to the principle of double effect, certain procedures are permissible in certain situations that require the saving of the mother’s life while unintentionally killing the fetus. For example, with an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo is stuck in the filopian tube, removal of the filopian tube is permitted even though it leads to the death of the embryo. Also, a pregnant woman discovers she has Uteran cancer. She is permitted (not obligated though) to have surgery to remove the Uterus even though it necessarily entails destruction of the fetus if the fetus has not reached a point of viability.

DNC’s in the case of rape are not permitted in Catholic hospitals.

 

[clmowry]

mikew262:

I stand corrected. You are right. Church says you should try to save both.

I suppose what is cold (as in cold hard truth) about it is that church doctrine gives you no leeway. If both mother and baby will surely die in a particular situation, but one could be saved, if the other died, there is no “out”, except to plan 2 funerals instead of one.

What hypothetical medical situation would require the mother to die because the child was not killed?

 

[Dan-Man916]

actually, regarding rape, I found this:

lifeissues.net/writers/sau/sau_01afterrape.html

Finally, health care providers must provide treatment to prevent the possible contraction of venereal disease and pregnancy. The Directives state, “A woman who has been raped may defend herself against a conception resulting from sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medication that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”(no. 36)

The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy. (Please note that for these three reasons, this guidance does not violate the Church’s teaching regarding contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae, which, because of the free-giving between spouses, stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (no. 11).)

My response is;
if there is no knowledge of conception, it is my understanding that the normal medical procedure is to do a DNC to remove all matter from the aggressor. perhaps someone with knowledge in this area can speak to this.

It seems to me that once knowledge of conception has taken place, then life MUST be respected.
However, it seems that medical procedures are certainly licit and allowable as a response to the crime for the woman who was attacked.

 

[mikew262]

clmowry:

What hypothetical medical situation would require the mother to die because the child was not killed?

Automobile accident. Mother is 4 monthes pregnant;baby is non-viable outside the womb. Mothers suffers a ruptured uterus and will bleed to death, if not immediately removed. If you concentrate on saving the baby, mother dies and baby will die anyway because it is too young. If you take the uterus out, baby will die, but mother lives.

Either way, it’s a tragedy. However, one life can be saved. The other option is 2 deathes.

 

[DreadVandal]

mikew262:

Automobile accident. Mother is 4 monthes pregnant;baby is non-viable outside the womb. Mothers suffers a ruptured uterus and will bleed to death, if not immediately removed. If you concentrate on saving the baby, mother dies and baby will die anyway because it is too young. If you take the uterus out, baby will die, but mother lives.

Either way, it’s a tragedy. However, one life can be saved. The other option is 2 deathes.

And one is permitted to do this according to the principle of double effect.

 

[pgoings]

Automobile accident. Mother is 4 monthes pregnant;baby is non-viable outside the womb. Mothers suffers a ruptured uterus and will bleed to death, if not immediately removed. If you concentrate on saving the baby, mother dies and baby will die anyway because it is too young. If you take the uterus out, baby will die, but mother lives.

But in this case removing the mother’s uterus is not wrong. It does not constitute voluntary sterilization (which would be immoral) and it certainly does not constitute an intentional termination of the pregnancy. Simply, the uterus is damaged, and is being removed because its continued presence constitutes a direct threat to the mother’s life which cannot (it is assumed) be corrected by some other means. An unfortunate secondary effect of this procedure is that the baby* in utero* will die, but this does not render the procedure immoral or illicit.

 

[mikew262]

DreadVandal:

And one is permitted to do this according to the principle of double effect.

OK then. The other person asked the question, I gave him a scenario.

 

[mikew262]

pgoings:

But in this case removing the mother’s uterus is not wrong. It does not constitute voluntary sterilization (which would be immoral) and it certainly does not constitute an intentional termination of the pregnancy. Simply, the uterus is damaged, and is being removed because its continued presence constitutes a direct threat to the mother’s life which cannot (it is assumed) be corrected by some other means. An unfortunate secondary effect of this procedure is that the baby* in utero* will die, but this does not render the procedure immoral or illicit.

No argument. I was just giving the requester a potential scenario.

 

[wjp984]

why are you all focusing on the neagtive of this law. Does everyone not see what a big leap forward this is. To my knowledge this is the first state that has defied Roe Vs Wade.

 

[mikew262]

wjp984:

why are you all focusing on the neagtive of this law. Does everyone not see what a big leap forward this is. To my knowledge this is the first state that has defied Roe Vs Wade.

Yes it is a big leap. Whether it passes muster with the Supreme Court is another story.

 

[jebojora]

I’m excited to see a politician stand up for what is right. We’ve been living with abortion so long and so many consider it a right equal to breathing!

It’s quite a statement for anyone in power to attempt to legislate an anti-abortion law.

From what I read, Gov. Rounds doesn’t see it having any immediate effect, but he hopes that with the installment of two fairly conservative judges on the Supreme Court, that if it goes to vote they have a chance of overturning Roe v.Wade.

 

[Forest-Pine]

The Supreme Court has consistantly struck down laws that did not make an exception for the life of the mother. (The health of the mother is a vague term that is applied to every conceivable situation–financial health, emotional health, etc–and is ineffective in restricting abortions. It is a different term from life of the mother.)

This law was tailor made with the specific intention of going to the Supreme Court. They are banking on Justice John Paul Stevens (who is 85) retiring from the court in the 2-3 years it will take to get the law there and hoping he is replaced with someone pro-life.

Those who are pro-life who are against this bill are worried about the timing because they are concerned that it will make a backlash from an otherwise dying movement, and might help to put a pro-choice candidate in the White House. That would set the movement back instead of moving it forward. The game plan until now has been to slowly chip away at the abortion “rights” and make it less acceptable and accessible–which has been gradually working. The argument is that it hasn’t done enough. There is great controversy between doing something NOW (even if it doesn’t turn out well) and doing something over time (which we know will take time). It is concievable that pro-life people on both sides of the divide are in good standing with the church as both are, in good conscience, working to the best of their abilities to abolish abortion.

 

[Brendan]

mikew262:

Automobile accident. Mother is 4 monthes pregnant;baby is non-viable outside the womb. Mothers suffers a ruptured uterus and will bleed to death, if not immediately removed. If you concentrate on saving the baby, mother dies and baby will die anyway because it is too young. If you take the uterus out, baby will die, but mother lives.

Either way, it’s a tragedy. However, one life can be saved. The other option is 2 deathes.

A hysterectomy is not an intrinsic evil.

The Principle of Double Effect therefore can apply.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

My mom is an ob nurse and she just told me about a case that deeply troubled her. A mom came in at 21 weeks with a syndrome called H.E.L.P. It is an acute situation in which if the baby is not immediately delivered, both mom and baby will die (within hours). So, they delivered the baby and let the mom hold him until he died.

Was that wrong?

 

[wjp984]

I think Roe vs Wade can be overurned even from a legal perspective. Amendment IX calls for the right to privacy. The Supreme Court says that infers the right to abortion. However Amendment X says all things not specifically granted to the power of the federal govt belong to the state. I don’t see how the issue of abortion is included in that list of rights. Abortion should be up to the people and the individual states to decided upon. If South Dakota wants to outlaw abortion, that should be their right. Just like certain states have the right to outlaw capital punishment. I am not positive but I think even before Roe vs Wade, abortion was still legal in some states but the states had the right to outlaw it if they chose.