Abortion hypothetical

[Gwendolyn]

Now, I'm fairly competent with moral theology, but when it comes to abortion, I don't want to take any chances. Someone asked me what the Church would consider a moral option in the following situation:

A woman is pregnant. She is healthy, fit, and is essentially in good shape to handle a pregnancy. However, 11 weeks into the pregnancy, she develops a heart problem (directly caused by pregnancy) and there is a 100% chance that she will indeed die within the next 1-2 weeks if the source of her ailment - the pregnancy - is not terminated. There is no other way to remedy her heart condition, and the doctors are certain that if the pregnancy is terminated, she will regain her health with time and the right medical care. If the pregnancy is not terminated, she will die.

Does the Church mandate that this woman must die because she is pregnant?

(Yes, there is such a condition, but I cannot remember the name right now.)

I told the girl who asked me this question that I would find a workable answer for her, so "Pray that God fixes her heart and allows her to continue the pregnancy" is not what I am looking for.

anyone have any insights?

 

[ChristoEtEcclesiae]

I thought that that was the only acceptable circumstance, but I'm not confidently sure.

 

[Michie]

I was taught the mother can be treated in hopes that both survive. But there cannot be a deliberate killing of the infant.

In other words, medical care can proceed... a direct abortion cannot.

 

[Gwendolyn]

I wish I could remember the name of the condition. It is a rare heart condition that is caused by pregnancy and it cannot be remedied and have the pregnancy still be viable. Both child and mother will definitely die.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Now, I'm fairly competent with moral theology, but when it comes to abortion, I don't want to take any chances. Someone asked me what the Church would consider a moral option in the following situation:

A woman is pregnant. She is healthy, fit, and is essentially in good shape to handle a pregnancy. However, 11 weeks into the pregnancy, she develops a heart problem (directly caused by pregnancy) and there is a 100% chance that she will indeed die within the next 1-2 weeks if the source of her ailment - the pregnancy - is not terminated. There is no other way to remedy her heart condition, and the doctors are certain that if the pregnancy is terminated, she will regain her health with time and the right medical care. If the pregnancy is not terminated, she will die.

Does the Church mandate that this woman must die because she is pregnant?

(Yes, there is such a condition, but I cannot remember the name right now.)

I told the girl who asked me this question that I would find a workable answer for her, so "Pray that God fixes her heart and allows her to continue the pregnancy" is not what I am looking for.

anyone have any insights?

No man or woman may kill an innocent human being for any purpose. even the state can only execute a guilty man.

And let me pre-empt any buts on this point. To do anything else would mean that the life that the child does have left to him is considered of less value an not of the same intrinsic worth. It is not that the mothers life is not valueible it is that the childs is just as valueible

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

The child may be removed from the womb which will in all likely hood result in his death. It is incumbant on the attending that they do everything they can to save their tiny patient. Assuming there is anything thing they can think to do. Just as they would with the mother.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Now, I'm fairly competent with moral theology, but when it comes to abortion, I don't want to take any chances. Someone asked me what the Church would consider a moral option in the following situation:

A woman is pregnant. She is healthy, fit, and is essentially in good shape to handle a pregnancy. However, 11 weeks into the pregnancy, she develops a heart problem (directly caused by pregnancy) and there is a 100% chance that she will indeed die within the next 1-2 weeks if the source of her ailment - the pregnancy - is not terminated. There is no other way to remedy her heart condition, and the doctors are certain that if the pregnancy is terminated, she will regain her health with time and the right medical care. If the pregnancy is not terminated, she will die.

Does the Church mandate that this woman must die because she is pregnant?

(Yes, there is such a condition, but I cannot remember the name right now.)

I told the girl who asked me this question that I would find a workable answer for her, so "Pray that God fixes her heart and allows her to continue the pregnancy" is not what I am looking for.

anyone have any insights?

There would never be a 100% chance.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

There would never be a 100% chance.

yes that's worth noting too science can only ever at best say with these things that they see no reason why or that they have no experience of anything that would contradict the likely outcome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I was taught the mother can be treated in hopes that both survive. But there cannot be a deliberate killing of the infant.

In other words, medical care can proceed... a direct abortion cannot.

The child may be removed from the womb which will in all likely hood result in his death. It is incumbant on the attending that they do everything they can to save their tiny patient. Assuming there is anything thing they can think to do. Just as they would with the mother.

Exactly.

There would never be a 100% chance.

My thoughts as well.

 

[Catherineanne]

There is no other way to remedy her heart condition, and the doctors are certain that if the pregnancy is terminated, she will regain her health with time and the right medical care. If the pregnancy is not terminated, she will die.

Does the Church mandate that this woman must die because she is pregnant?

I cannot speak for the Church, of course, but IMO, nobody has the right to tell anyone else what to decide, when faced with such a terrible dilemma. We can impose a strict morality on ourselves, but we do not have the right to impose it on anyone else to the extent that they end up dying as a result. That may not be murder, but it comes very close to manslaughter, I would say.

 

[Antigone]

There would never be a 100% chance.

yes that's worth noting too science can only ever at best say with these things that they see no reason why or that they have no experience of anything that would contradict the likely outcome.

I think that's why Gwen posed it as a hypothetical, so we can assume here, for the sake of argument, that there is a 100% chance that the mother will die in a week or two.

Gwen - was it by any chance peripartum cardiomyopathy that you meant?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Gwen's story is hypothetical but its in fact the true story that happened in Arizona this past year, and the Bishop stated that the abortion was immoral and the doctors, mother and nun who was on the ethics panel who approved the abortion, had excommunicated themselves.

He used the principle of double effect which is, you can not commit an evil, which the Church says all direct abortions are intrinsically evil, in order to achieve a good, the life of the mother.


So in Gwen's scenario, no, to perform an abortion would be against Church teaching and would incur grave sin and excommunication.

Jim

 

[Gwendolyn]

Alright, my hunch was that moral theology would dictate that both must die.

 

[Davidnic]

There would never be a 100% chance.

Pretty much my first Thought too. I just got in after three days back and forth to family with no wireless and such. But I have read many doctors who say there is no such circumstance where a direct abortion is required to save a life. I have some references from doctors on that, one of them is one of the leading neonatal doctors and researchers.

They stress all situations are different so hypotheticals like the above can never reflect a situation. But they do agree there is never a 100% chance in those situations.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Now, I'm fairly competent with moral theology, but when it comes to abortion, I don't want to take any chances. Someone asked me what the Church would consider a moral option in the following situation:

A woman is pregnant. She is healthy, fit, and is essentially in good shape to handle a pregnancy. However, 11 weeks into the pregnancy, she develops a heart problem (directly caused by pregnancy) and there is a 100% chance that she will indeed die within the next 1-2 weeks if the source of her ailment - the pregnancy - is not terminated. There is no other way to remedy her heart condition, and the doctors are certain that if the pregnancy is terminated, she will regain her health with time and the right medical care. If the pregnancy is not terminated, she will die.

Does the Church mandate that this woman must die because she is pregnant?

(Yes, there is such a condition, but I cannot remember the name right now.)

I told the girl who asked me this question that I would find a workable answer for her, so "Pray that God fixes her heart and allows her to continue the pregnancy" is not what I am looking for.

anyone have any insights?

The woman - according to the Church - must resolve to fix the ailment.
She may receive medication and or surgery as though she is not pregnant, but must not abort.
If the child dies due to the medical assistance out of necessity then it was in God's hands...
And she is not culpable.

She must not intend to end the child's life, but she must pursue her options to obtain her health.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Pretty much my first Thought too. I just got in after three days back and forth to family with no wireless and such. But I have read many doctors who say there is no such circumstance where a direct abortion is required to save a life. I have some references from doctors on that, one of them is one of the leading neonatal doctors and researchers.

They stress all situations are different so hypotheticals like the above can never reflect a situation. But they do agree there is never a 100% chance in those situations.

And the doctors on the case in Arizona would disagree as others have.

They stated, we were not just going to sit back and watch the mother die. According to them, they didn't have days to think about it, she was in critical condition and they had to act.

Anyway, I pray none of us ever have to be put into that decision.

Jim

 

[WarriorAngel]

And the doctors on the case in Arizona would disagree as others have.

They stated, we were not just going to sit back and watch the mother die. According to them, they didn't have days to think about it, she was in critical condition and they had to act.

Anyway, I pray none of us ever have to be put into that decision.

Jim

Well, was she given surgery?
Meds?
Was the abortion the only possibly cure??


I think in this case - the deed done in that she was pregnant, she would have went past go, collected $200 and directly to Heaven if she refused for the sake of the child.
Not all can do these things...of course.

But its unlikely the baby would not have died naturally if she would went ahead and worked on the cure without immediately aborting the child.

We will never know if God would given a miracle, since science has all the answers.

AND the mother will never know if the decision was based on human error.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

WarriorAngel

Well, was she given surgery?
Meds?
Was the abortion the only possibly cure??

According to the doctors, their goal was to save both mother and child. They came to the position that they could only save the mother. Now, how many people could be in their position and sit back and watch the mother die?

I think in this case - the deed done in that she was pregnant, she would have went past go, collected $200 and directly to Heaven if she refused for the sake of the child.

We don't know, but the reality is, she accepted for realization that she wasn't going to live anyway and therefore, neither would the fetus. She would leave her other four children mother-less.

But its unlikely the baby would not have died naturally if she would went ahead and worked on the cure without immediately aborting the child

Only the doctors on the case know for sure. We can only speculate.

Jim

 

[WarriorAngel]

The entire synopsis is speculation.
The doctors can only guess she had 2 weeks...and that it was a direct cause of the baby.
Like i said, we shall never know otherwise.

But the Church's stance is - do everything possible to save the mother including surgery, medications and whatever else is feasible concerning a cure or aid.
If the child dies as a secondary - then it was not the intent to kill the child, and it was by God that the child did not survive.

Just restating their position, which makes most sense.

 

[Davidnic]

Alright, my hunch was that moral theology would dictate that both must die.

Well more so, you can not actively kill one innocent to save another rather than both must die. Moral theology does not propose to answer any hypothetical where we know something like that 100%. Because to assume that assumes that we know something only God does. So moral theology says the hypothetical is not answerable because it assumes man has Godlike knowledge.

A similar hypothetical is you have a child dying of cancer, you have another person and if you shoot the child in the head the second person will live. Do you shoot the innocent to save the other innocent because the first will not survive as far as a human being will know.

The thing is, all hypothetical situations that say there is a 100% chance or that if we do this because we know something for certain require us to take on knowledge known only to God...are not the realm of any theology because they give man Godlike knowledge. To assume on ourselves the ability to judge the worth and duration of a life with total accuracy is not possible.

So the hypotheticals fall apart whenever they rely on saying that something is 100% known. Even the one I gave above is unjust and unanswerable because it relies on us being able to say something we can not.