What is the difference - morally - between a direct and an indirect abortion?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. This question has been bothering me lately. Why should a direct abortion be worse morally than an indirect abortion?

 

[puzzleannie]

i don’t know what your definitions are, but if you mean by indirect, one that is the unintended result of an action taken to treat a medical condition in the mother, that would not be wrong under the principal of the double effect. example: a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer receives treatment which may jeopardize her pregnancy, and an unintended abortion results from that treatment. A direct abortion is an action taken with the specific intent of ending the life of the baby and is morally reprehensible in every and all circumstances and is never an option.

 

[fix]

I believe they are moral theological terms.

CCC:
**

2271

**

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75 God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

Now, if you search the Vatican website you can find at least one reference to indirect abortion:

… The author rightly affirms the overall immorality of abortion; however, his position on therapeutic abortion is ambiguous.(52) In his discussion of the possibility of medical intervention in some very difficult cases, it is not clear whether he is referring to what has traditionally been called “indirect abortion”, or if he admits the lawfulness of procedures which do not come under this category…

 

[losh14]

Hi everyone. This question has been bothering me lately. Why should a direct abortion be worse morally than an indirect abortion?

It’s a matter of intention. Let’s get around mental constructs and go to the meat.

An action that is intended to cause abortion, whether it succeeds or not, is gravely sinful and morally repugnant. This includes abortion clinic procedures such as D&C, as well as at-home taking of abortifacient agents, as well as toxification such as binge-drinking or heavy drug use with intention of causing abortion.

An action that may cause an abortion but has some other good as its intended end is in a more gray area. This means things like treatments for cancer or other conditions that preserve the life of the mother but jeopardize the life of the embryo. This may also include diagnostic procedures (such as amnioscentisis) that have been known to result in spontaneous abortion. Where the need is imminent (ie, internal bleeding of the abdomen or uterus following traumatic injury and requiring invasive surgery) it is a lesser evil to lose the baby than lose both. Where the need is longer-term (ie, diagnosis of early stage cancer in the 38th week) and treatment can begin following delivery, it is better to wait and preserve the lives of both.

An action that intends to end a pregnancy that is itself considered harmful is generally considered not morally repugnant because the pregnancy generally will not terminate naturally in birth but rather in grave harm to the mother. This would include an ectopic pregnancy - one that is unlikely to be carried to full term because it would cause death of the mother prior to that. At this point, medical science considers the pregnancy a pathogenic agent, and while this is unfortunate, it is better to save the mother than lose both.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Hi everyone. This question has been bothering me lately. Why should a direct abortion be worse morally than an indirect abortion?

In order to have grave/mortal sin, the intention to sin must be there. A direct abortion is only intended to end the life of the unborn child. An indirect abortion is intended to cure/treat another disease in the mother with the side-effect of the death (possible) of the unborn child.

Lets put it this way… A man breaks into your house and threatens your family w/ a gun. If you shoot him while he’s holding a gun to your child’s head, its self/familial-defense & licit. If he leaves, but you see him later & shoot him - its murder. The end result is still a dead bad guy, but the intent in the 1st case was self-defense - you wanted to prevent him from harming your family. In the 2nd case the intent was just to kill the guy b/c he scared/threatened your family.

 

[Ron_Conte]

direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. But the morality of intrinsically evil acts are independent of intention. Direct abortion is an act which is directed at killing the innocent unborn human person. Even if one’s intention were only to save the life of the mother, if the means to that intention is direct abortion (rather than indirect abortion), then the act is still intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

indirect abortion refers to acts which in and of themselves are not directed at killing the innocent, but at treating a medical condition such as cancer; the death of the prenatal is an unintended consequence, not an intrinsically evil act.

 

[Holly3278]

Oh ok. All of these posts make sense to me! Thanks everyone! My doubts and questions have been cleared up!