"To save the life of the mother" when and how?

[chain]

“Pro-Life your names a lie, you don’t care if women die.” I am not sure if others have heard this catchy phrase - but it was shouted at us a lot at a pro-life rally in Texas. At the time I thought I had the simple answer to it, and thought the protesters were misinformed. Now I am pretty sure I was mistaken about the Churches teaching, and my simple answer was incorrect.

So on the less simple side, when could a pregnancy actually put the mother in immanent risk (realistic situations) and how does Catholic Teaching cover it.

My thoughts…

1. Tubal pregnancy - remove damaged tube (other procedures increase risk of subsequent tubal pregnancies as the tube is damaged).
2. Late pregnancy complications - C section after child is viable, can not image when an abortion would be a necessary alternative over a C section.
3. Perhaps a hemorrhage, where stopping the blood loss would also cutting off blood flow to the child.

When else could an issue arise, and how could it be handled if a C section would not be possible to save the life of the child? Even the Brazil case could have probably been solved by waiting till a C section was possible.

 

[Spencerian]

“Pro-Life your names a lie, you don’t care if women die.” I am not sure if others have heard this catchy phrase - but it was shouted at us a lot at a pro-life rally in Texas. At the time I thought I had the simple answer to it, and thought the protesters were misinformed. Now I am pretty sure I was mistaken about the Churches teaching, and my simple answer was incorrect.

So on the less simple side, when could a pregnancy actually put the mother in immanent risk (realistic situations) and how does Catholic Teaching cover it.

My thoughts…

1. Tubal pregnancy - remove damaged tube (other procedures increase risk of subsequent tubal pregnancies as the tube is damaged).
2. Late pregnancy complications - C section after child is viable, can not image when an abortion would be a necessary alternative over a C section.
3. Perhaps a hemorrhage, where stopping the blood loss would also cutting off blood flow to the child.

When else could an issue arise, and how could it be handled if a C section would not be possible to save the life of the child? Even the Brazil case could have probably been solved by waiting till a C section was possible.

Hi.

Catholic teaching absolutely forbids the termination of the life of a fetus.

In the case where illness or injury occurs where a fetus would be killed as a consequence of saving the life of the mother, these similar examples could fall under the exception known as a “double-effect:”

• An ectopic pregnancy occurs. To save the life of the mother, the affected tube is repaired, which unfortunately ends the fetus’s life that implanted there.
• A woman has uterine cancer that threatens to metastasize. To save her life, the uterus must be removed, which will end the life of a fetus inside as a unfortunate but unavoidable side effect.
• A woman is injured in a car accident. Drugs must be administered to save the woman’s life that will terminate the child’s life.

More on the principle of double-effect can be found here.

 

[Newbie2]

Dittos.

“Pro-Life your names a lie, you don’t care if women die.”

Never heard that one. As misguided and juvenile as the rest of the pro-abortion arguments, methinks.

 

[rusty20]

This is a very difficult and delicate issue. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the child is (correct me if I’m wrong) doomed to death. The child literally cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy. Thus, the issue is less complicated. The issue becomes more complicated when, for instance, a chronic heart condition is aggravated by pregnancy, in which there is not exact certainty that the baby or the mother will die. All that doctors can do is make an educated guess. What about the following medical scenario with different chances of survival for the mother as pregnancy continues:

months 1-2 + 30% chance mother dies
months 3-4 = 65% chance mother dies
months 5-6 = 85% chance mother dies
months 7-9 = mother WILL die

In those cases, what is the Catholic claim? Is the mother to continue pregnancy and risk killing herself? The Catholic position could be handing women the fate of death in some cases…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is a very difficult and delicate issue. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the child is (correct me if I’m wrong) doomed to death. The child literally cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy. Thus, the issue is less complicated. The issue becomes more complicated when, for instance, a chronic heart condition is aggravated by pregnancy, in which there is not exact certainty that the baby or the mother will die. All that doctors can do is make an educated guess. What about the following medical scenario with different chances of survival for the mother as pregnancy continues:

months 1-2 + 30% chance mother dies
months 3-4 = 65% chance mother dies
months 5-6 = 85% chance mother dies
months 7-9 = mother WILL die

In those cases, what is the Catholic claim? Is the mother to continue pregnancy and risk killing herself? The Catholic position could be handing women the fate of death in some cases…

One may never do a deliberate evil, even if good will result.

Thus, the medical scenarios above are moot.

Suppose that the mother is hooked up to an innocent man or woman sitting in a chair by her bedside. Now, suppose that there is a death ray gun strapped onto the innocent person (which the person did not put on himself or herself, and which CANNOT be removed) and which has a random chance of firing and killing the pregnant woman, who likewise CANNOT be moved from the bed. The random chance of firing is 30%. So, while you can’t remove the death ray or the woman on the bed, you DO have a sharpshooter who CAN kill the innocent person. Is the 30% risk ‘enough’ that you tell your sharpshooter to fire?

When would YOU say that the life of the one person (the woman) is worth more than the life of the innocent person?

 

[rusty20]

So the woman has no right to defend herself against the person killing her?

 

[Zatzat]

Is the woman to sit and wait for both her and the fetus to die?

If I were the fetus and knew that I was not only going to die, but I was going to kill my mother, I’d tell the woman to end my life so that she could live.

When I got to heaven, I’d ask God why he chose to create me, only to have me die, kill my mother and all before I was even born!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Is the woman to sit and wait for both her and the fetus to die?

If I were the fetus and knew that I was not only going to die, but I was going to kill my mother, I’d tell the woman to end my life so that she could live.

When I got to heaven, I’d ask God why he chose to create me, only to have me die, kill my mother and all before I was even born!

No, all that can be done for both is to be done. That’s not ‘waiting to die’, that is striving to live (morally). Suppose the child were in that chair next to the woman, with the death ray strapped onto the head. Does the mother (who may be hit with the death ray–and remember, the child did not put it there, cannot take it off, doesn’t will the mother’s death, etc.) have the right to yell to the police sharpshooter–“Kill the kid?”

Really? If you were the fetus and knew that you would somehow ‘kill’ your mother (obviously not by intent), you’d ask to be killed in order to save her?

Then why do so many women, who know that if they chose abortion they will kill their child, AND by INTENT, choose to live at the expense of their child’s life?

Seems to me you’re giving the fetus a different moral position from the mother. It’s like, “if I were the kid, I’d die for my mom”, but "If I were the mother, I’d off the kid so I could live.’ Pretty grim.

**And since God is all good, I’m sure He has a ‘reason’ for that child and that mother to ‘face’ whatever needs to be faced. I’m a mother of three (all grown now) and with my youngest I did have a dangerous hemorrhage. Had I not been able to be ‘saved’, if there were a question of “We can only save one life, yours or the baby’s” I would have said, "Save the baby’. . .even if it meant leaving the baby (and my two older children) without a mother on earth. . . because my life is not worth ‘more’ than the baby’s. Furthermore, as the only one able to ‘speak’ or to ‘choose’, my responsibility is always to act as God would intend. For me to live at the expense of KILLING MY CHILD would have been beyond sad, it would have been damnable. In offering my life for my child I would be following the example of Christ who laid down His life for others. **

 

[Zatzat]

Really? If you were the fetus and knew that you would somehow ‘kill’ your mother (obviously not by intent), you’d ask to be killed in order to save her?

Knowing that I was going to die and that I was the direct reason why my mother was going to die as well…absolutely, I’d sacrifice myself.

Then why do so many women, who know that if they chose abortion they will kill their child, AND by INTENT, choose to live at the expense of their child’s life?

I doubt that there are many women who choose to die along with their fetus.

Seems to me you’re giving the fetus a different moral position from the mother. It’s like, “if I were the kid, I’d die for my mom”, but "If I were the mother, I’d off the kid so I could live.’ Pretty grim.

The fetus is going to die regardless. Why have two deaths?

**And since God is all good, I’m sure He has a ‘reason’ for that child and that mother to ‘face’ whatever needs to be faced. **

God is not all good if he’s deliberately giving women ectopic pregnancies and some that even turn into Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia.

I’m a mother of three (all grown now) and with my youngest I did have a dangerous hemorrhage. Had I not been able to be ‘saved’, if there were a question of “We can only save one life, yours or the baby’s” I would have said, "Save the baby’.

Yes, as most parents would do as well. Yet, were not talking about a baby that can live. We’re talking about a fetus that is doomed to die.

For me to live at the expense of KILLING MY CHILD would have been beyond sad, it would have been damnable.

The fetus is already doomed to die, only the fetus will kill it’s mother as well.

 

[Rence]

Knowing that I was going to die and that I was the direct reason why my mother was going to die as well…absolutely, I’d sacrifice myself.

I doubt that there are many women who choose to die along with their fetus.

The fetus is going to die regardless. Why have two deaths?

God is not all good if he’s deliberately giving women ectopic pregnancies and some that even turn into Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia.

Yes, as most parents would do as well. Yet, were not talking about a baby that can live. We’re talking about a fetus that is doomed to die.

The fetus is already doomed to die, only the fetus will kill it’s mother as well.

I admit, I was one of those people who thought there were no such circumstances that required an abortion to save a woman who was in danger of dying due to the physiological impact of the pregnancy on her body. Despite the Church’s teaching on this matter (which teaches that there are no circumstances dire enough to warrant saving the woman by an abortion, no matter what), I understand and can relate to the comments in your reply. This isn’t a stumbling block for just us two.

 

[tjm190]

If we want a more accurate parallel, consider “Homicidal somnambulism” which apparently actually exists- there are number cases of people who committed murder while unconscious. Surely these people are not morally responsible for their actions for the same reason a fetus is not- they are not in control.

If a sleep walking person made an attempt on your life, would you be justified in responding with lethal force if necessary? Or would you be obligated to lay down and die, assuming less then lethal means failed?

 

[elts1956]

So the woman has no right to defend herself against the person killing her?

Read again. To save herself someone else will die.

 

[elts1956]

So the woman has no right to defend herself against the person killing her?

If we want a more accurate parallel, consider “Homicidal somnambulism” which apparently actually exists- there are number cases of people who committed murder while unconscious. Surely these people are not morally responsible for their actions for the same reason a fetus is not- they are not in control.

If a sleep walking person made an attempt on your life, would you be justified in responding with lethal force if necessary? Or would you be obligated to lay down and die, assuming less then lethal means failed?

Sometimes I wonder at people who post on threads that, if not of the same title, concern the same issue, are given the same answers to their same questions again and again and float from thread to thread to voice their same confrontational statements, or questions. Apparently, they just refuse to “get it”. I am out of here.

 

[Zatzat]

Sometimes I wonder at people who post on threads that, if not of the same title, concern the same issue, are given the same answers to their same questions again and again and float from thread to thread to voice their same confrontational statements, or questions. Apparently, they just refuse to “get it”. I am out of here.

How is what your doing any different? You have a different opinion, so it is the problem of the other posters or is it you that, as you say, refuses to " get it"?

 

[tjm190]

Sometimes I wonder at people who post on threads that, if not of the same title, concern the same issue, are given the same answers to their same questions again and again and float from thread to thread to voice their same confrontational statements, or questions. Apparently, they just refuse to “get it”. I am out of here.

Right. Your position and your ability to convey it are perfect, and if someone is not convinced it must be a failure on their part.
If you’d like to tell me whether or not I’m obligated to allow a sleepwalker to kill me should nonlethal options fail, that’d be nice.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How is what your doing any different? You have a different opinion, so it is the problem of the other posters or is it you that, as you say, refuses to " get it"?

Well, the difference is that it isn’t a ‘different opinion’.

Relativists apparently have the idea that a person can have a different ‘opinion’ because there is no absolute truth; therefore, in situation A it might be moral for a person to do X, but in situation B it would NOT be moral. Or for person C to do X might be moral, but for person D it would not be moral.

But if there is an absolute truth (and obviously we Catholics know there is), then it is no longer a ‘different opinion’ to be given no more ‘weight’ than a score of ‘opinions’.

Suppose that you have persons A, B, C and D.

Person A does not believe that Christ ever existed. That is an opinion.

Person B believes that Christ may have existed, but that he was only a ‘man’, not God. That is an opinion.

Person C believes that Christ did exist but that while He did some pretty amazing things that may (to the ‘uneducated’ of AD 100) LOOKED supernatural, they weren’t, and were in any case ‘exaggerated for effect’. That is an opinion.

Person D believes that Christ existed, and was both God and man, and that He died and rose, for all humanity.

Now, persons A, B and C all can argue their ‘opinions’ until the cows come home. Because their ‘opinions’ are not full truth, all that ‘separates’ them is the degree in which they lack truth. Person A fully lacks truth by fully rejecting Christ’s existance–but person A, should he become convinced Christ existed, can go ‘on’ to position B, C, or D.

Person B has some inkling of the truth because he agrees Christ existed --but he has no grasp of the reality of ‘how’ Christ existed. Between A and B the only difference is that one does not believe that any ‘Christ’ existed, the other acknowledges an ‘existence’ but that existence is not a ‘true’ one. It is like saying, “yeah, a man named John Wayne existed once in 20th century U.S. as an actor and was famous for playing transvestites.” Since John Wayne was most famous for his roles in westerns, to say that he ‘existed’ yet give him a job that is not at ALL what he TRULY did is nearly as wrong as not noting that he existed at all.

Person C has even more ‘grasp of the truth’ in that he knows Christ existed and even acknowledges some of Christ’s miraculous work; however, person C refuses to accept the truth and insists on assigning a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘exaggerate’ the effect. He assents to the truth of Christ’s existence but throws doubt on the manner of how and what He did.

If person B were to move up and acknowledge that Christ did some ‘wonderful things’ he could become person C; if person C were to start doubting even the ‘minor’ miracles he could slip ‘back’ to being person B.

But person D has the fullness of truth.

To say that person D’s position is ‘comparable’ to A, B, or C is either to make the latter positions of EQUAL worth to the truth (though they are not), or to make the TRUTH (person D’s position) ‘lesser’ than truth by insisting that it is of no MORE WORTH than the incomplete A, B, or C.

So it is not a ‘difference of opinion’ when one argues the truth against falsehood. It is only a difference of opinion when people are arguing two or more ‘incompletes’ against each other; when the ‘completeness’ enters the picture, it becomes then a case of truth standing there and people either accepting it or rejecting it.

 

[Zatzat]

You’re blinded by faith. Persond D, also holds an opinion and is no more or less true than person E who believes that Brahman is the true God.

Well, the difference is that it isn’t a ‘different opinion’.

Relativists apparently have the idea that a person can have a different ‘opinion’ because there is no absolute truth; therefore, in situation A it might be moral for a person to do X, but in situation B it would NOT be moral. Or for person C to do X might be moral, but for person D it would not be moral.

But if there is an absolute truth (and obviously we Catholics know there is), then it is no longer a ‘different opinion’ to be given no more ‘weight’ than a score of ‘opinions’.

Suppose that you have persons A, B, C and D.

Person A does not believe that Christ ever existed. That is an opinion.

Person B believes that Christ may have existed, but that he was only a ‘man’, not God. That is an opinion.

Person C believes that Christ did exist but that while He did some pretty amazing things that may (to the ‘uneducated’ of AD 100) LOOKED supernatural, they weren’t, and were in any case ‘exaggerated for effect’. That is an opinion.

Person D believes that Christ existed, and was both God and man, and that He died and rose, for all humanity.

Now, persons A, B and C all can argue their ‘opinions’ until the cows come home. Because their ‘opinions’ are not full truth, all that ‘separates’ them is the degree in which they lack truth. Person A fully lacks truth by fully rejecting Christ’s existance–but person A, should he become convinced Christ existed, can go ‘on’ to position B, C, or D.

Person B has some inkling of the truth because he agrees Christ existed --but he has no grasp of the reality of ‘how’ Christ existed. Between A and B the only difference is that one does not believe that any ‘Christ’ existed, the other acknowledges an ‘existence’ but that existence is not a ‘true’ one. It is like saying, “yeah, a man named John Wayne existed once in 20th century U.S. as an actor and was famous for playing transvestites.” Since John Wayne was most famous for his roles in westerns, to say that he ‘existed’ yet give him a job that is not at ALL what he TRULY did is nearly as wrong as not noting that he existed at all.

Person C has even more ‘grasp of the truth’ in that he knows Christ existed and even acknowledges some of Christ’s miraculous work; however, person C refuses to accept the truth and insists on assigning a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘exaggerate’ the effect. He assents to the truth of Christ’s existence but throws doubt on the manner of how and what He did.

If person B were to move up and acknowledge that Christ did some ‘wonderful things’ he could become person C; if person C were to start doubting even the ‘minor’ miracles he could slip ‘back’ to being person B.

But person D has the fullness of truth.

To say that person D’s position is ‘comparable’ to A, B, or C is either to make the latter positions of EQUAL worth to the truth (though they are not), or to make the TRUTH (person D’s position) ‘lesser’ than truth by insisting that it is of no MORE WORTH than the incomplete A, B, or C.

So it is not a ‘difference of opinion’ when one argues the truth against falsehood. It is only a difference of opinion when people are arguing two or more ‘incompletes’ against each other; when the ‘completeness’ enters the picture, it becomes then a case of truth standing there and people either accepting it or rejecting it.

 

[Rence]

This particular “truth” as imposed by the Catholic Church is imposed by few others besides the Catholic Church, and applies to Catholics. Those who are not Catholic and do not share this Catholic teaching are not going to believe they are obliged to subject themselves to this relative “truth” taught by the Church.

I would hardly call the entire Jewish religious “immoral” or “relativists” because of the fact that although abortion on demand is considered gravely immoral and an abomination, in cases where pregnancy is a threat to the woman’s life, they allow women to have an abortion if they truly need one, rather than watch her die. In the Jewish religion, the woman is more valuable in the rare cases in which her life is in danger due to the physiological demands on her body due to pregnancy. The Jews are our brethren and are a very devout, moral and loving peole who are also rich in culture and very devote in their love of God, our Father. So this is quite obviously a “difference of opinion” and not an absolute truth.

As this is a Catholic standard, Catholics should obey this law, or the result is excommunication. End of story – for a Catholic who wishes to remain in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Some seem to believe that there is no such thing as an absolute truth, only opinion, which can ‘vary’ and be ‘true’ for some but not others.

But to claim that there is nothing but ‘opinion’ and no absolute truth is as much an ‘absolute statement’ as to claim an absolute truth. Because you are stating, ‘absolutely’, that there is no absolute, only relatives!

You can’t try to argue that your position of ‘opinion’ is somehow more ‘tolerant’ or engaging. Because, among all those 'opinions, either there is a full truth, or at least one truth which is more ‘truthful’ than at least one ‘other’ truth. . .or else there is nothing but error.

So, what are y’all trying to say? That I cannot claim position D as an ‘absolute truth’ (based on both faith and reason and the testimony of Scripture as well as the corroboration of the Church? By what authority do you pronounce then the real truth --and what is it, if my statement is not true?

You cannot be claiming that all the ‘opinions’ are true, when they contradict each other. And if you’re claiming that my statement is false, then you must think that you know --and can demonstrate–what is true.

Enlighten us please.

 

[Rence]

I already did