A woman can have a hysterectomy if her uterus is compromised and it needs to be removed because it’s damaged or causing associated problems like endometriosis.So is a woman allowed or not allowed to get a hysterectomy?
Where’d you get that idea. A woman can have sex with her husband whenever they choose.Okay, so basically the woman isn’t allowed to have sex, then?
What do you call killing a baby, if not abortion?But I don’t really consider the case I described to really be abortion, either.
No, a doctor wouldn’t be condemned for being unable to save both. But, the doctor would be condemned for KILLING one of them on purpose.Doctors make this choice all the time - medical emergency - 2 people both of whose lives are equally valuable - one doctor - who does she chose???
Does anyone cendemn her for not saving both???
Of course not - that would be rediculous!!!
She has to make a choice.
Just like me.
And I chose my life for the sake of my children.
But apparently Im wicked evil and condemned to hell.
Well, I say THAT system is wicked and evil.
Ok the actual amount of times where the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy is a fraction of a % of the abortions in this country. Many of those are late term abortions and almost all are performed AFTER the time when a child can be delievered c section and have a 95% chance of survival. So the amount of circumstances when this is actually a real question is very very very rare. Most of those invovle a tubal pregnancy which has been discussed above. My response would be for the Doctor and mother to do everything they could to prolong the pregancy as long as safe and then perform a c-section.I’m curious about the “Church” stance on an abortion in only the following case: when the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is so risky that either the pregnancy or birth will likely result in the mother’s death, is abortion justified in that case?
And birth control, for a woman known to be at risk? Is that allowed for her?
But if a pregnancy would cause her harm, why could she not act to prevent it by surgery?A woman can have a hysterectomy if her uterus is compromised and it needs to be removed because it’s damaged or causing associated problems like endometriosis.
She cannot have a hysterectomy in order to sterilize herself and prevent future pregnancies. That is intrinsically evil.
Better than dying.Ok the actual amount of times where the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy is a fraction of a % of the abortions in this country. Many of those are late term abortions and almost all are performed AFTER the time when a child can be delievered c section and have a 95% chance of survival. So the amount of circumstances when this is actually a real question is very very very rare. Most of those invovle a tubal pregnancy which has been discussed above. My response would be for the Doctor and mother to do everything they could to prolong the pregancy as long as safe and then perform a c-section.
As the ABC for a woman known to be at risk. Let me put a different light on this. NO form of ABC other than removing the uterus is proven 100% effective, and very few doctors are going to do that solely for birth control purposes because of the potential side effects. Both the Assure Method and Tubal Ligations have instances of failure… there is a woman at our church that has had two post Tubal ligation kids…her doctors still have no idea how it happened. So if as a woman you know that getting pregnant will kill you, then is it really worth risking your life to have an orgasm, and what type of husband would demand that of the woman he loves. Also for a women who is at risk for a high risk pregnancy, but not a fatal one…when practiced correctly NFP is actually more effective than many forms of ABC out there. Again, I’d rather sacrifice a little sex than my overall health…and any man who didn’t feel the same about his wife is unworthy of being a husband.
The Catholic Church does allow for Removal of diseased organs. If a side effect of that is sterilization thats Ok. Again no doctor who is any good is going to remove a woman’s uterus for birth control only…there are to many side effects for that to be reasonable. Ask any woman who has had this done…you aren’t the same afterwards.
I call it saving the mother.What do you call killing a baby, if not abortion?
It is wrong to kill babies. There aren’t any circumstances that make killing babies OK to do.
If a woman is in an emergency situation, the doctor may treat her. His goal is to save both. If in treating her the baby does not survive, that is sad but not an abortion. So, a woman could have surgery, a woman could be put on medication, etc, for her condition.
Killing the baby is never a legitimate treatment for whatever the woman’s medical problem is.
If a pregancy is going to cause harm the reason it is causing harm is often due to an issue with the woman’s reporductive system. Then you are removing a diseased organ. If the reason is due to something else as I stae below no doctor is going to just take out a uterus for sterilization only.But if a pregnancy would cause her harm, why could she not act to prevent it by surgery?
I think you will find few Catholics that say sex is only about procreation. It’s about two people joining together to deepen their relationship and form a family. It is not however to sole method of expressing love between a man and a woman, nor is it the most important all encompassing part of a relationship between a man and a woman. If a realtionship is not able to hold together without sex, then that relationship was not built on a solid foundation. If I knew that having sex again with my husband would have a strong chance of killing either him or me, I would rather give it up than lose one of us having him as my husband is too important and sex is not. Also I would not consider undergoing major surgery with major negative effects on my health and such simply for the ability to have sex.Better than dying.
Though I do wonder why Catholics are so keen on giving up sex–like it’s only for procreation or something.
Let me reframe your example…Say the baby is born safely and is now a year old, and the mom contracts a rare disease and the only was to save her is to harvest a vital organ from the baby…one that the child can’t live without. Do you kill the child (who is to young to consent to sacrificng it’s life) to save the mother??? A life is a life…you can’t sacrifice one for another against their will. It is one thing to voluntarily sacrifice your life for another…it is totally different to take an innocent life to save another.I call it saving the mother.
Because the uterous is not causing the harm. Removing it does not treat any disease or condition.But if a pregnancy would cause her harm, why could she not act to prevent it by surgery?
We are not at all keen on giving up sex. In fact, it is referred to as the marital debt. It should never be withheld and should be given up only for the gravest reasons. Sex is for procreation and for marital unity. It’s both/and; not either/or.Better than dying.
Though I do wonder why Catholics are so keen on giving up sex–like it’s only for procreation or something.
There are many ways to save a life. Some are licit; some are immoral.I call it saving the mother.
Now is that because of the Church’s stance, or because you think it’s better in the end for your family to be left without a wife and mother?If a pregancy is going to cause harm the reason it is causing harm is often due to an issue with the woman’s reporductive system. Then you are removing a diseased organ. If the reason is due to something else as I stae below no doctor is going to just take out a uterus for sterilization only.
I think you will find few Catholics that say sex is only about procreation. It’s about two people joining together to deepen their relationship and form a family. It is not however to sole method of expressing love between a man and a woman, nor is it the most important all encompassing part of a relationship between a man and a woman. If a realtionship is not able to hold together without sex, then that relationship was not built on a solid foundation. If I knew that having sex again with my husband would have a strong chance of killing either him or me, I would rather give it up than lose one of us having him as my husband is too important and sex is not. Also I would not consider undergoing major surgery with major negative effects on my health and such simply for the ability to have sex.
Again there is no fool proof method of ABC, other than a hysterectomy, and not doctor worth going to is going to perform one without a valid medical reason, losing a uterus fundementally changes a woman’s hormones and the structure of her internally in that area. There are HUGE side effects, including drastically increased risks of certain cancers, heart issues, and having to permenantly be on hormone therapy. Not to mention many women report a complete lose of sex drive afterwards, which in your example would effectively defeat the purpose. It is a huge surgery and not undertaken lightly.
Let me reframe your example…Say the baby is born safely and is now a year old, and the mom contracts a rare disease and the only was to save her is to harvest a vital organ from the baby…one that the child can’t live without. Do you kill the child (who is to young to consent to sacrificng it’s life) to save the mother??? A life is a life…you can’t sacrifice one for another against their will. It is one thing to voluntarily sacrifice your life for another…it is totally different to take an innocent life to save another.
Sister Amy…it seems to me that you are seeking that perfect situation where you can force the Catholic Church to be OK with abortion. The problem is that situation doesn’t exist. You can keep going through hypothetical gymnastics to try and make the situation work, but you aren’t going to find it. Killing unborn children is a sin, and it is murder. As a pregnant mother I would be horrified at the suggestion that I should kill my child to save my own life, in fact my explicit instructions to my OBGYN, my husband and family are if you have to pick save the baby.
So the best parent is a dead one?What the Church is trying to teach through these guiding laws is this:
“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
The Church is trying to teach love, reminding families that love must be first. Parents should not sacrifice their children for their well being, but on the contrary, they should sacrifice themselves for their children. Even the ultimate sacrifice. Always to trust God and his providence. Life and death are in his hands. We should not put them in our hands.
If she died for you to save your life? yes!So the best parent is a dead one?
I’m just curious, which is your particular branch of Islam and where does it stand on the issue?I’m curious about the “Church” stance on an abortion in only the following case: when the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is so risky that either the pregnancy or birth will likely result in the mother’s death, is abortion justified in that case?
And birth control, for a woman known to be at risk? Is that allowed for her?
I’m not Catholic so I’m not “bound” by it’s stance…it’s actually basic humanity that binds me. I have no right to force another person to give up their life to save mine. Of course I want to live and raise my kids and I would do everything possible to save both myself and my unborn child. The situations where a doctor has to make the choice between the two are practically non existant they are so rare. Even at this point in my pregnancy if my son had to be delivered C-section he would have an over 95% chance of surviving and being perfectly healthy in the end, granted he would be i the NICU for a while, but he would be OK. Situations like you are looking for have been all but eraticated by modern medicine.Now is that because of the Church’s stance, or because you think it’s better in the end for your family to be left without a wife and mother?
You cannot attack the fetus. If the mother is treated and the indirect result is the death of the fetus, then it can be tolerated. But not a direct attack on the fetus. For example, if the mother receives chemo which is meant for cancer and not an abortifacient (I mean it is but who uses chemo to abort? Obviously the intention for chemo is not to abort).I’m curious about the “Church” stance on an abortion in only the following case: when the life of the mother is put at risk by the pregnancy. If the pregnancy is so risky that either the pregnancy or birth will likely result in the mother’s death, is abortion justified in that case?
And birth control, for a woman known to be at risk? Is that allowed for her?
This is so true. By the time you are in this situation in all but the rarest cases treatment for the mother can be delayed long enough to allow the baby to grow enough and be saved too.I can’t imagine a birth scenario that will cause death that can be saved by abortion but not by c-section.