What can i say about these cases?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theCardinalbird

Guest
Abortion cases which were apparently medically necessary:

A Baby around 14 Weeks was lost because he was attached to the uterine wall backward, and when he started kicking he tore himself away and hemorrhaged to death. The pro-life hospital that this person was in refused to do an abortion or even transfer to a hospital who would do one. If the child was already dead, and was not bleeding out while the mother was bleeding out, was abortion the only medically available option for the mother to survive?

The second case:

A woman was just under 20 weeks along with her second daughter, they found out she had a condition which causes high blood pressure and protein in urine. The doctor gave her like 5% chance of being able to bring the baby to term with both of them surviving. Needlessly to say, she chose to give birth to the child (and refuse abortion because she was terrified of her church being brutally rude to her) but the child survived for only 2 hours and 48 minutes (the entire time in pain). Both the child and the mother died (she was 28 years old).

Would abortion save the mother’s life in this case?

What can be said about these cases?
 
The best way to respond to these cases is…


Generically, having read Trent’s book, you know the answer…
Directly killing the baby is WRONG. Using a medical procedure to save the mother’s life, even though the baby will likely die in the process is ok if there is no better choice.

There are many what ifs. The women involved can generally contact the Bioethics Center as it has a 24/7 hotline.

It boils down to intent.
 
In the first case, it’s not abortion because the baby has already died. Depending on circumstances, a doctor might recommend that the mother deliver naturally, or that she have surgery (commonly a D&C, which is sometimes used as an abortion procedure too and thus the source of a lot of confusion.)
 
In the second case, late term abortions involve induction of labor. The woman will have to give birth no matter what (or have an emergency C section), it’s just a matter of when. There’s no medical “benefit” to the mother by killing the baby before delivery.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Many women have them after miscarriages, especially if labor does not start on its own after the baby’s death.
 
I’m not familiar with the difference. Most of the women I know who have miscarried have used the term “D&C.” The thing that matters is whether or not the baby has died. You cannot kill the baby on purpose. If the baby dies, and is not delivered, surgical intervention may be the best thing and which method may depend on the case.
 
theCardinalbird said:
If the child was already dead, and was not bleeding out while the mother was bleeding out, was abortion the only medically available option for the mother to survive?
Click to expand...
If the child is already dead, it isn’t an induced abortion, which is what the Church has a problem with. No one sought to kill the child, and nothing they did killed it. It was an unfortunate circumstance, but at that point, you need to do what is medically necessary for the mother, because there’s no longer moral problems with removing the child.
theCardinalbird said:
The doctor gave her like 5% chance of being able to bring the baby to term with both of them surviving. Needlessly to say, she chose to give birth to the child (and refuse abortion because she was terrified of her church being brutally rude to her) but the child survived for only 2 hours and 48 minutes (the entire time in pain). Both the child and the mother died (she was 28 years old).
Click to expand...
It would be valid to take steps to save the woman’s life, even if an unfortunate side-effect is that the baby will probably die. That is, they aren’t intentionally inducing abortion, but it might happen. However, intentionally inducing abortion would be considered wrong, since we should not commit an evil, in this case abortion, that good may come about, in this case saving the mother. Catholicism does not follow a consequentialist ethics.

This is not, however, to say that the whole situation isn’t horrible and saddening. I’ve definitely read my fair share of horror stories that could have been avoided with an abortion. However, at the same time, abortion is itself a sickening horror and among the gravest evils we permit as a society, and the fact much of it stems from viewing the ability to murder as empowering just makes it even more horrifying.

Really, in these situations, I think it is best to consider meditating on the Sorrowful Mysteries with a particular focus on what Jesus endured for the sake of obeying the Father. He went through tremendous agony (first mystery), incredible physical pain (second mystery), pitiful shame (third mystery), tiring patience (fourth mystery), and unjust execution (fifth mystery) for us. In light of that, I’m not sure there’s any evil we can justify ourselves doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top