Actually, since getting some new information and speaking with some people, there actually are times where the mother’s life is allowed to be taken over the fetal life. It is a teaching called double effect - and there are direct and indirect abortions. I’m fairly certain this is why the Priests told me I did nothing wrong.
INDIRECT ABORTION
(Taken from “Medical Ethics” by Edwin F. Healy)
IN DIRECT abortion a living and nonviable fetus is removed from the
uterus. The reason for the removal is that the pregnancy, added to
some pathological condition from which the mother is suffering,
increases her difficulties or even lessens her chances of survival.
No condition exists, however, which makes the removal of the uterus
itself necessary as a means of saving the mother’s life.
The abortion is termed indirect when the pregnant uterus itself is
excised because its condition is such that its removal is medically
necessary. If the uterus contains a living and nonviable fetus, the
fetus will of course inevitably die. There is no direct attack upon
the fetus, however, and its death is merely permitted as a secondary
effect of an act which needs to be performed and which, as we shall
see immediately, it is permissible to perform.
It is licit to excise a diseased uterus which is gravely dangerous,
even though the operation will indirectly kill the fetus which is
enclosed in the womb. The reason is that we may rightly apply the
four conditions of the principle of the twofold effect. The first
condition is fulfilled, for the operating surgeon’s intention is to
save the life of the mother. He, of course, foresees the death of the
fetus, but he does not desire this evil effect. The second condition
is fulfilled, for the surgeon’s act consists in ridding the woman of
a diseased part of her body which is jeopardizing her life. Hence
that which he sets out to accomplish is licit. If the fetus were not
present, the surgical operation of removing a diseased and dangerous
part of the woman’s body, the cancerous uterus, would obviously be an
act which of its nature is not evil. The presence of the living fetus
in the diseased womb does not alter the nature of the act which the
surgeon performs. The operation is directly remedial regarding the
mother’s body and is in itself unconnected with the pregnancy. The
third condition is fulfilled, for the evil effect (the death of the
fetus) does not cause the good effect (saving the life of the
mother). Whether the fetus were harmed by the operation or not would
make no difference in regard to producing the good effect. The fourth
condition is fulfilled, for safeguarding the mother’s health is a
proportionately grave reason for permitting the death of the fetus.
The physician who performs an operation of this kind should have a
nurse procure beforehand a basin of lukewarm water in which the fetus
may be baptized immediately after the uterus is removed from the
mother. When the diseased womb has been extracted from the woman’s
body, it should be cut open at once and the fetus should be baptized.
If the fetus is very small, baptism by immersion would be preferable.
If the fetus is enclosed in the sacs or membranes, the latter must of
course be removed, so that in the baptism the water will touch the
head of the infant.
In all such operations, where the surgery has important bearing on
two lives and not merely one, the surgeon must be sure that the
reason for operating is a proportionately grave one. If, for example,
the fetus is near viability and an immediate hysterectomy would only
probably, and not certainly, diminish the danger of death to the
mother, the operation would be illicit. In this case the pregnant
uterus may not be excised; for since the surgery would bring certain
death to the fetus, the latter’s certain right to life must take
precedence over the mother’s right to a doubtful benefit. Again, if
excising the uterus would only probably indirectly cause the death of
the fetus, surgery would be licit if needed to remove probable danger
to the mother’s life. If, moreover, the operation would rarely result
in death for the fetus, it would be licitly performed when necessary,
not to save the mother’s life, but to cure her of a grave disease. A
remote hope of saving the mother justifies surgery which is necessary
to prevent death of both the mother and the child, for the surgeon is
doing all in his power to save both. It is taken for granted that
there are no other effective means which would not endanger the
