Abortion hypothetical

[Davidnic]

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

I would hope no one ever jumps for joy at an excommunication. I don't think the Bishop did that, but he also could not let it be said that the thing done, a direct abortion was allowable. That was the position he was in too. Be silent and let this stand as something that the hospital could do under the Catholic code of ethics.

And, given the later info on their involvement in other things like voluntary sterilization and such and actively hiding them from the Bishop in a deliberate attempt to deceive....we need to look at what else the Bishop could have done.

 

[Davidnic]

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

I agree with you on that. I would hope it has not seemed my intent was to trivialize the horror of the decision.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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?

(I haven't read all 20 pages, this is a response to the OP)

It is a grave mortal sin (and excommunicable offense) to cause a direct abortion by any means, for any reason. There is no justification that can be made for the murder of a child.

She can, of course, receive treatment for the heart condition, even if such a (hypothetical) treatment unfortunately caused the death of her child, but she cannot kill her child to help her own situation.

And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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

Whether or not she dies is up to God and her body. All we are saying is that she cannot murder her child in the hopes that it might help her own health. That's still murder.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Could the woman be induced into labour, then? Or is that considered an abortion as well?

As long as you are post-viability (and there is a grave reason to do so, such as to save the life of the mother), it is okay. But if you're only like 15 weeks into the pregnancy and you induce, that's murder because there is no way that child can survive.

 

[benedictaoo]

As long as you are post-viability (and there is a grave reason to do so, such as to save the life of the mother), it is okay. But if you're only like 15 weeks into the pregnancy and you induce, that's murder because there is no way that child can survive.

If the life of the mother is at risk actually, not presumed to be at risk, if she is literally dieing, and the only way either has any chance to live is to induce labor, then it is not murder.

But in anticipation of a potential life threat and you choose abortion, that is murder.

the thing in a nut shell is intent. Abortion intends to just get rid of the problem and induced labor is an attempt to birth the child.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Btw, excommunication was extreme and completely out of proportion to what happened.

All participants in an abortion are excommunicated latae sententiae -- by their own actions -- the bishop made a point to talk about this one because it was a Catholic hospital and a nun.

If you have an abortion or participate in someone else's (such as driving them to the PP or paying for it), you are automatically excommunicated and if you repent, you have to go through the bishop to lift that excommunication and receive absolution. Now, abortion is unfortunately so common that most parish priests are given the faculties to absolve in this case as delegates of the bishop but it's a very serious charge and has serious consequences.

If an eternity in hellfire is a just punishment, certainly excommunication is not too "extreme". The purpose of excommunication is to give people a horror of sin (because we are so much more effected by sensible, immediate effects than the future state of their soul) and to encourage them to return and repent. Excommunication is certainly a just punishment for this crime.

 

[benedictaoo]

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

Jim

No Jim, it's birthing it even if it has little to no chance.

That is what you are truing a blind eye to.

Birthing it with dignity as opposed to killing via dismembering it inside the womb in order to get rid of the problem and treating it as if it's trash.

 

[benedictaoo]

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

We even try to put down animals in as humane a way as we can. Aborting a baby who has "No chance" is not the correct what to handle it.

Like the way the tube tying papers read, it was a procedure that sterilizes for the sole purpose of preventing pregnancy, it did not read, to save one's life... the same with abortion, the produce is to kill a baby- not to save a life.

 

[benedictaoo]

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

I agree with you Jim. I can say what I say and am in child baring years still who does not take ABC and who would be in serious trouble if I were to get pregnant again.

I can say if I were, Lord help me... but I would not abort.

Now I would not be in eminent danger like that of this case but if I were I would try to go as far as I could and just deliver it if there was literally nothing else that could be done.

I would do the same for my daughter.

I don't know Jim, we shouldn't fear death to this extreme extent, IMO. Neither should we disregard our own life either but there must be a balance to this.

Is me living that import that I would do such a thing? No.

And it's a martyrdom if I should die... so in all likelihood, that would be the only way I could go straight up with out passing go or collecting $200.00.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The doctors were 100% certain the mother would die. What you're proposing is akin to Jehovah's Witnesses, that the doctors should've just left it in God's hands.

I don't know what Jehovah's Witness policy you are referring to (the only thing I know about JW is about blood transfusions) but no one here has said the mother cannot be treated. She just can't be "treated" by murdering her child.

But also, hey, yes, God exists! The problem with those fundamentalists who tell people going to doctors is a "loss of faith" is that they expect everything to be a miracle and won't take proper precautions. It'd be like driving down the road at 100mph blindfolded and saying that God's angels will keep you safe. This is different than having your car blessed or saying a prayer before you drive (even many lapsed Catholics still have a St. Christopher medal on their rear view mirror) but still keeping your eyes on the road and driving sensibly. "You shall not put the Lord thy God to the test."

At that stage of life, 11 weeks inside the dying body of its mother, the fetus does not have equal status. The fetus can not survive without the mother, but the mother could survive with the fetus removed. The mother has four other children and a husband. Her value in life far outweighs the fetus in this circumstance.

Extrinsic value maybe -- the same reason why regicide is a graver crime than simple murder (many more people are adversely effected by the murder of a king than of a random man on the street). But the intrinsic value of even an 11 week old child is still infinite.

I believe theologians and moral ethicist in the Church are going to be debating this for some time now.

People can debate all they want. They just want to justify sin. The teachings of the Fathers and the Magisterium throughout history has been consistent. Scholastic moral theology, which proceeds from reason and is endorsed by the Church, is also clear. The directly intended killing of an innocent person is murder and can never be rightly ordered -- it is an intrinsic evil.

My guess is that they are going to define such abortions as indirect, being, the intention was not to abort the child, but to save both mother and fetus, but when that option runs out, you have to save one, in this case, the mother.

Except going in there and killing the child is not an indirect killing at all. An indirect killing of an innocent person might be dropping a bomb on a military base (in a just war) and that a child who happens to be too close to the base is killed in the explosion. This is different than dropping a bomb on a hospital or going in and massacring civilians intentionally. That is the difference between war and terrorism.

An indirect abortion would be where the child dies as a side-effect of some treatment, when the murder of the child is the "treatment", it is clearly a directly intended act.

People want to come up with justifying reasons for sin all the time. I could say, "I want a baby" and having a child is certainly a good thing. So I go out to the bar to find me a baby daddy. Well, that's not a good thing. Fornication is an intrinsic evil, there is no justifying reason to do so even if you intend some good to come out of it (such as having a child or trying to convince the guy to marry you). Murder is also an intrinsic evil, there is no justifying reason to do so, even if you intend some good to come out of it (such as saving the life of the mother).

Keep in mind the Double Effect Principle is a guide, its not infallible. In fact, when Ambrose wrote it, he was applying in justified self defense.

I mostly think of Ambrose in relationship to his hymns. I'm pretty sure St. Thomas Aquinas originated the Principle of Double Effect.

Double Effect only comes into play when the act itself is not intrinsically disordered. For example, killing is not always murder. It can be murder (when the person is an innocent), it can be neutral (when it is entirely and unculpably accidental) or it can be laudable (such as killing in a just war or a just execution).

The Principle of Double-Effect does not apply here because abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent -- murder. It also doesn't apply because the act with evil consequences is supposed to be the cause of the good end. As St. Paul says, quoted above, we cannot commit evil that good may come of it.

In those days, a woman's life was pretty much 2nd rate when it came to making decisions about reproduction.

Heck, they believed it was the woman who determined the sex of the children she conceived and she was often blamed if he didn't produce a son.

Not Catholic doctrine, but it was the mindset of the day.

Which has to do with what? Killing children doesn't improve the status of women in society, it lessens it.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

David, this is not factually true. The Doctors said their goal was to save both mother and child, but when the options ran out, they had to save the mother.

... by murdering the child. That's the problem.

Fact is, what would've happened had the Doctors followed Church teaching and let the mother die?

The medical board would have reviewed the case and the doctors and hospital would be charged with negligent manslaughter.

We'd be seeing threads on how to get the doctors out of jail.

So? I'd rather be charged with a crime in a civil court than in the Divine Court.

Its easy to debate the issue on an intellectual leve. Its another to be living with the situation in front of your, or going through it yourself.

True, but that's why we discuss it ahead of time -- so that when we're in a bad situation, we know how to act. It's hard to think clearly when you are stressed out, being told you are dying, that your own child will be the cause of your death, and doctors are telling you to make a pre-emptive strike by killing him first. I understand that. But it was still her choice and the choice of those involved in the murder to commit that act.

The mother, opposed the abortion, but when told she would die with the baby, she had no other choice but to save her own life.

Actually, she had a choice and she made the wrong one. May she repent and come back to God.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

and there are no guarantees you will live anyways... I knew a woman who was diagnosed with progressive cancer when she fund out she was pregnant, she choose to abort to "save her life" and guess what? she died anyway.

And even she had lived another ten years or fifty, then what? She will die one day and have to answer for what she did.

We're all living under a death sentence, destined to die at some unknown point in the future, what is important is not how long we live but how we choose to live, the decisions we make. What account of her actions is she supposed to give when she is standing before the Judge?

Memento mori.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I almost died.. but God pulled me through.
I would have willingly and even told my doctors umpteen times - save the baby first.

My son is adorable... and his laughter is contagious. He is now 10 years old.

Had i died, i know it would have been the right thing to do.
So i often base these 'hypotheticals' on genuine experience.

Moms should have a maternal drive that allows them to lay down their lives for their children.
In my mind - hey i lived my life... and maybe my child has a more important task.

I am not a mother but that seems to be the natural maternal response -- to risk or even give up your own life for your children.

But we are so separated from our natural life, inundated by materialism, selfishness and contraceptive culture that even abortion -- the unthinkable murder of a child -- is an okay thing to do, even a "right".

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I didn't have time to read the entire thread, so i apologise if someone has already asked this question. However, there is a condition where an embryo attaches itself up one of the fallopian tubes. If you leave it there, it kill the mother before it's old enough to live on it's own. What should you do in this situation? Kill the baby to save the mother? Or let them both die?

Neither -- most moralists say you can remove the Fallopian tube.

This is where the Principle of Double-Effect comes into play. You remove the fallopian tube, which is not an evil act in and of itself. The good and intended end is the health of the mother. The bad and unfortunate side-effect is that the child will die and that it will lessen your ability to reproduce (though we do have two ovaries/tubes). It is the removal of the fallopian tube and not the death of the child that is intended to effect the good end -- the health of the mother.

This is different than having an abortion or sterilization because the intention is good and the act (excising a portion of the fallopian tube) is not intrinsically evil but is contingent upon the circumstances.

There has been some work in transplanting the embryo from the fallopian tube into the uterus and there have been cases of ectopic pregnancies being carried to term. But until the science is to the point where we can get the child where he's supposed to be, there is no choice but to just cut out the fallopian tube and let him die (which is different than directly killing him).

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Cancer is always fatal if left untreated. Ectopic pregnancies are always fatal if left untreated. (And to the baby as well.) If you had cancer, would you refuse treatment because you figured that was tampering with God's will?

You can get treatments that might or will certainly kill the child for a grave reason. For example, you can take chemotherapy -- that is a treatment for cancer. Murder is not a treatment for cancer. Murder is murder.

You can excise a portion of the fallopian tube (or other effected body part) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. But you can't murder the child. These are different acts -- one is morally permissible, the other is not.

God's will is for us to live a moral life. That involves making hard choices and sacrifices. Sacrificing a child on the altar of personal freedom or health is not a moral choice.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Well in the case we were talking about, we don't know what procedure was used to perform the abortion. For all we know, the mother was induced and she delivered the pre-viable fetus, which would've died in birth.

Which is the same thing. Inducing a pre-viable woman to give birth is an abortion. Abortum refers to a premature birth, even a miscarriage is technically an "spontaneous abortion". When we refer to abortion in this thread, we are referring to abortions caused by man. Inducing a woman prior to the point of viability is murdering the child.

According to Church teaching, it wouldn't even be Baptised if its dead on delivery. So much for it being a person.

If he or she has been dead for a while, no, we don't baptize dead people because their souls are long gone. But if the child dies during the birth or shortly after, sure. You can baptize up to an hour after apparent death because we don't actually know when the soul leaves the body, since there are residual functions which continue even after pulmonary failure.

You can not save an 11 week old fetus. In fact, you can't save a fetus younger than 21 weeks. Thats just the reality of medicine.

But you can try to carry the child to at least the point of viability and then induce.

I know its an emotional issue for you, but there are realities in life that are difficult, and this is one of them.

It's a difficult issue that some people think it is okay to murder children.

John Wayne Gacy, George Tiller -- it's all the same.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

No, because I am not dependent on you living.

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

Which only increases the responsibility of the mother.

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

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

Jim

You're making it into an emotional issue instead of a rational one. Could you sit with this child and watch him die, knowing the "doctors" were murdering him? It's the same.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

PilgrimToChrist;

Which is the same thing. Inducing a pre-viable woman to give birth is an abortion.

Which is what I have been saying.


Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Which only increases the responsibility of the mother.

You're making it into an emotional issue instead of a rational one. Could you sit with this child and watch him die, knowing the "doctors" were murdering him? It's the same.

No, I'm not making it into an emotional issue, but presenting the reality of what those involved had to face.

I could watch the doctors induce labor in order to save the woman's life, even though they knew the baby would be born dead as a result. Well, I could handle that better than watching the mother die with her four children and husband crying at her bed side.

Its sad, but its what they had to do. They weren't just going to stand back and watch the mother die.


Jim