Abortion hypothetical

[benedictaoo]

There are worse ways to die you know... dying because you would not murder your child is martyrdom. Love sure covers a multitude of sin.

What if all the early martyrs of the Church thought like that? Where would we all be now?

Truth is worth dying for.

Towards the end of #4's pregnancy, the doctor was trying to convince me I needed the tubes tied and I admit, she was wearing me down... but I turned on Mother Angelica and she said something about a mother who risked it all to deliver a baby- and now she's a saint, so that ended that.

Then when I was pregnant with # 6, same thing- Dr even had me sign the papers to do it, in advance but I was not having it done, and I let her know that, but just that if I wanted it done at the last second, she would be able to... I signed it really to shut her up.

Funny thing on it though.. it read, the sterilization procedure is to prevent pregnancy and for no other purpose, or something to that effect. NOT to save my life, but to NOT get pregnant anymore.

But I go home and turned on the TV and some moral theologian said one thing- "Truth is worth dying for..." so that was that, but I wasn't going to do it anyway, but it brought home the reason why I wasn't. But I wanted to tear it up.

 

[benedictaoo]

And this is really the bottom line.

Directly killing the 11 week old fetus is murder.

Inducing labor, which kills the 11 week old fetus, is not.

Doesn't make sense, but I'll leave it at that for now.


Jim

It is not because you are not wanting it to die and hoping it will not.

Abortion- in what way are you not wanting it to die and hoping it will come out of it okay?

Letting live for even just a minute is what's the difference. It got to live, even if it was for a half second. Can't say the same for abortion.

You treated it as if it matters and respected the sanctity of life. Can not say that for abortion.

Abortion is the opposite, you are disrespecting it and treating it like it's waste.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

2WhomShallWeGo
No, because I am not dependent on you living.

Classic pro abort argument of dependency. as usual the aprropriate response is that dependancy does not cease it just fades. Toddlers are dependant on mothers and most average joes are dependent on society or the next stiff winter will kill them. If dependancy is the argument then we can kill a hck of a lot of people.

Also, I'm a fully developed adult human being, unlike an 11 week old fetus, who can not survive without its mother.

classic developmental argument plus dependency. If we argue on the level of development then up until somewhere around 25 anyone can be executed for the same reason because they are not fully developed. Aswell the mentally retatrded could arguibly be destroyed.

Could you sit with this woman and watch her die, while knowing the doctors could save her life by terminating the pregnancy?

If my only way to save her is to murder some one else....

I couldn't and I doubt the doctors could, which is why they performed the abortion.

I have noticed that you do not seem to value all life as priceless gift from God hence this is not surprising from you. You believe that you are somehow more important than others who might not be as "developed" as you or as independent as you. You do not seem to value all life but rather you see it more the way the eugenicists do. You base the value of life not on the priceless soul but on functionality and worth to society. How subjective of you. May God be good to you and may no one successfully apply such subjectivity to you.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Davidnic




But the intention wasn't to kill the fetus, but to end the pregnancy in order to save the mother's life. Termination of the pregnancy at 11 weeks is absolutely lethal for the fetus.

thats ironic, dont you think?
Terminating is not killing?

At 20 weeks, the doctors know that the baby will most likely not survive delivery. If it does, it will not survive outside the womb, no matter what they do, because the lungs are not developed enough and currently, 21 weeks is the cut off for trying to save a premature baby. Beyond that, it becomes experimental medicine and is unethical according to medical boards.



If they induced labor on a pre-viable fetus, its not likely that the fetus will die, its certain.



Yes, the Bishop explained this. However, what we're not sure of, is if the baby was removed through induced labor, or through other means.
Either way, its still terminating the pregnancy knowing the death of the fetus is certain, and is considered illicit.



We don't know that. It still could be induced labor as I stated above and would still be considered a direct abortion.



I consulted with a priest via email at Priest for Life.



When induced labor is certain to kill the fetus, its an abortion even though the intent wasn't to kill the fetus in the first place. However, the fact that you know giving birth to an 11 week fetus is going to kill it, inducing labor would be seen as a direct abortion. It doesn't matter why you terminated the pregnancy.



Again, we don't know how the fetus was killed.

But even if it was from induced labor, which they knew the fetus could not survive, it would still be considered a direct abortion.


Jim

If ppl really cared about the mother - they wouldnt push for her to make a choice to kill her child.
It harms a woman indefinitely.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

WarriorAngel

thats ironic, dont you think?
Terminating is not killing?

Actually that's the point I was making. Bene and David have said that inducing labor, knowing it was going to kill the baby is not an abortion and therefore licit. The priest at Priest for Life, disagrees. Anything done which you know will kill the fetus is illicit.

If ppl really cared about the mother - they wouldnt push for her to make a choice to kill her child.
It harms a woman indefinitely.

What does her death do?

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

That's not true Jim. We are talking about the intent to kill the baby vrs a baby dieing no matter how you try to save it.

We may know the baby is not gong to make it but we are not going to directly kill it just because we know it will not make it.


Abortion is saying, we wish we didn't have to kill it, but we do, so lets.

Abortion is directly being the child's killer. Inducing labor is not.

There is a HUGE difference in saying, the baby is not going to make it- but I will not be the one to kill him... as opposed to saying, he won't make it- so lets just get it over with and kill it.

and you keep getting away from this... I would not try to deliver a baby at 11 weeks. I would wait to at least 20 and hope I had that much time... In NO WAY! I'm inducing labor to just let the baby die. I am waiting and inducing in an attempt to save us both.

If I had to cut my chances down to 50% and give the baby a 50% chance as well, that is what I would do.

I would not give the baby a 1% chance so I could have a 99% chance.

The intent is what makes one murder and not the other. The other just makes it a sad situation.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

That's not true Jim. We are talking about the intent to kill the baby vrs a baby dieing no matter how you try to save it.

We may know the baby is not gong to make it but we are not going to directly kill it just because we know it will not make it.

If you induce labor to terminate the pregnancy at 11 weeks, you are in fact killing the fetus. The intent is to save the mother by terminating the pregnancy, which otherwise will kill her. But the intent according to the Church is to do an evil, i.e. abort the fetus, in order to save the mother, and is illicit.

Abortion is saying, we wish we didn't have to kill it, but we do, so lets.

Abortion is directly being the child's killer. Inducing labor is not.

You contradict what you just said. If inducing labor is going to kill the 11 week fetus, which it certainly will, then its an abortion and illicit in the eyes of the Church.

There is a HUGE difference in saying, the baby is not going to make it- but I will not be the one to kill him... as opposed to saying, he won't make it- so lets just get it over with and kill it.

and of course no one sees the case in question in this simplistic approach.

and you keep getting away from this... I would not try to deliver a baby at 11 weeks. I would wait to at least 20 and hope I had that much time... In NO WAY! I'm inducing labor to just let the baby die. I am waiting and inducing in an attempt to save us both.

And the doctors wanted to wait until the baby was viable at 21 weeks, so they could save it, but the mother's condition degraded to the point where they either had to terminate the pregnancy, or let her die along with the fetus. According to the doctors, they didn't have the luxury of time on their side in order to make a decision that would save both.

If I had to cut my chances down to 50% and give the baby a 50% chance as well, that is what I would do.

Sure, but "IF" is an illusion, it doesn't exist. In the case we're speaking about, there was no option to save the life of the mother, other than to terminate the pregnancy as they did.

I would not give the baby a 1% chance so I could have a 99% chance.

The intent is what makes one murder and not the other. The other just makes it a sad situation.

Its nice to see ourselves as having high moral virtue and believe that we would follow the teaching of the Church on this issue.

However, if it were your daughter in the same situation, would you seriously tell the doctors, don't terminate the pregnancy and let both her and the 11 week fetus die?



Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

Sigh... First I would not induce labor at 11 weeks.

Next, if I had to, I would do that becuase it's not directly killing it- it is letting it be born- which is trying to give it life even for a half second, no matter how futile. It will die a loved wanted child.

Look, I'm not directly dismembering my child at 11 weeks inside the womb. If it came down to it- I would tell the doc-- YOU WILL deliver this baby- and it WILL be born and die like a human person deserves to be.

It WILL NOT be aborted.

I don't know what's left to say Jim, the difference between direct abortion and delivering the fetus is clear but I don't know why it's hard for you.

 

[Davidnic]

Jim, if what you are saying were true then a salpingectomy would be considered Illicit but it is not, the majority of Moral Theologians and the health care instructions to Catholic Hospitals consider a salpingectomy in an ectopic licit. So using that as the baseline, as well as what I was taught from high school on up, I form the consistent logic of my posts on this.

So the majority of moral theologians agree, and the practice of Catholic hospitals follows that model.

In the McBride case then the procedure, if described as an abortion, did not follow that model.

 

[benedictaoo]

However, if it were your daughter in the same situation, would you seriously tell the doctors, don't terminate the pregnancy and let both her and the 11 week fetus die?

If it were my daughter, whom I love more then life itself, I would say, Honey- we will deliver the child- not abort it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If it were my daughter, whom I love more then life itself, I would say, Honey- we will deliver the child- not abort it.

Delivering the child would be killing it, that's what you seem to be turning a blind eye to.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim, if what you are saying were true then a salpingectomy would be considered Illicit but it is not, the majority of Moral Theologians and the health care instructions to Catholic Hospitals consider a salpingectomy in an ectopic licit. So using that as the baseline, as well as what I was taught from high school on up, I form the consistent logic of my posts on this.

So the majority of moral theologians agree, and the practice of Catholic hospitals follows that model.

In the McBride case then the procedure, if described as an abortion, did not follow that model.

Removal of the fallopian tube is licit, but not removal of the fetus to repair the fallopian tube.

At least that's how I understand it. Removal of the fetus is directly killing it and therefore illicit.

In the McBride case, if they induced labor to terminate the pregnancy, inducing labor on a healthy fetus is considered an abortion by many ethicist in the Church.

Again, we don't know how the pregnancy was actually terminated. It may have been done through induced labor and Bishop Olmstead considers that an abortion and hence the resulting excommunications.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

However, if it were your daughter in the same situation, would you seriously tell the doctors, don't terminate the pregnancy and let both her and the 11 week fetus die?

I would not dismember a stranger, friend, enemy or grandchild to save a stranger, friend, enemy or child.

There are other options. The doctors here say there was not, just about every other doctor I have read on this can not envision how that was possible. True, they do not know the case...but people with decades of experience have said they know of no situation where it is necessary to do what was done.

So I look at this and say, were the doctors wrong or was this a once in a lifetime never seen before by specialists in the field kind of thing.

And I am left with the conclusion, after reading the views of doctors on this, that a direct abortion is the only moral option about as often as (not intending to be flippant) I may be gored by an enraged unicorn.

So you might as well ask me would I allow my daughter to be given to appease an angry dragon. Because a direct abortion, as defined by Catholic morality as I understand it, is necessary about as often as that situation.

And if the situation truly degraded to that point, I would question the competency of the doctors treatment in letting it get that far or spiral through all other treatment options that could have been helpful. Like I said, or it was a medical situation that experts have never seen before. In which case we will know all about it at some point because there will be a paper on it.

 

[Davidnic]

Jim everything I have read from experts says that she could have showed up for the first time in distress without knowing the condition existed. And that there are other treatments that are not as sure as aborting. That abortion is the safest thing for the mother but not the only method of treatment available.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

I would not dismember a stranger, friend, enemy or grandchild to save a stranger, friend, enemy or child.

There are other options. The doctors here say there was not, just about every other doctor I have read on this can not envision how that was possible.

But you're presuming they dismembered the fetus, and of course if you present the question in this context, then the doctors would say its not necessary.

However, what was necessary or not can not be determined by those not involved directly with the case.

So I look at this and say, were the doctors wrong or was this a once in a lifetime never seen before by specialists in the field kind of thing.

And I am left with the conclusion, after reading the views of doctors on this, that a direct abortion is the only moral option about as often as (not intending to be flippant) I may be gored by an enraged unicorn.

So you might as well ask me would I allow my daughter to be given to appease an angry dragon. Because a direct abortion, as defined by Catholic morality as I understand it, is necessary about as often as that situation.

And if the situation truly degraded to that point, I would question the competency of the doctors treatment in letting it get that far or spiral through all other treatment options that could have been helpful. Like I said, or it was a medical situation that experts have never seen before. In which case we will know all about it at some point because there will be a paper on it.

Well lets hope and pray that your daughter is never put into this situation.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

Removal of the fallopian tube is licit, but not removal of the fetus to repair the fallopian tube.

At least that's how I understand it. Removal of the fetus is directly killing it and therefore illicit.

In the McBride case, if they induced labor to terminate the pregnancy, inducing labor on a healthy fetus is considered an abortion by many ethicist in the Church.

Again, we don't know how the pregnancy was actually terminated. It may have been done through induced labor and Bishop Olmstead considers that an abortion and hence the resulting excommunications.

Jim

That is true, at 11 weeks a greater case can be made for inducing labor being a live abortion because of viability.

There would be a different division of moral theologians on either side of that than an ectopic.

But the issue here is also: Could another method have been used to prolong the pregnancy.

And in that neither of us know.

The thing is I believe from what I have read, that there is a chance no matter how slim to save both. You do not.

And that is the dividing point between us here.

 

[Davidnic]

Well lets hope and pray that your daughter is never put into this situation.

Indeed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In talking about this subject with my wife over the past week, we both agree that if it were us, we could not directly kill the baby. In fact, we were in that position with our son, 30 years ago, but terminating the pregnancy was never an option for us.

However, we're at a level of faith where we can say this with confidence. Also, we're long past child bearing years.

But we also understand where a mother without this level of faith, may not be able to sacrifice her life for the fetus, which she knows will die with her anyway.

I understand her dilemma as well as the doctors and ethics panel who had to sit there and deal with the issue first hand.

I'm not going to call them murderers, or jump for joy in glee over the Bishop's statements on their excommunication.

Its a sad event, and we need to pray that these people haven't been driven out of the Church because of lack of compassion expressed towards them.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

So, a serious question, a doctor comes out and says...there is a (black)% chance of survival.

What percent is necessary for one life to be moved ahead of another?

Because that is the basis of all of this. At what point do we say...ok, we can kill an innocent to save the other life.

I say there is no percent that can be given that justifies directly killing an innocent

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So, a serious question, a doctor comes out and says...there is a (black)% chance of survival.

What percent is necessary for one life to be moved ahead of another?

Because that is the basis of all of this. At what point do we say...ok, we can kill an innocent to save the other life.

I say there is no percent that can be given that justifies directly killing an innocent

And I would agree, except that I understand from my comfortable position sitting here, its an easy decision to make.

Can say the same for those going through the experience.


Jim