Abortion hypothetical

[benedictaoo]

2WhomShallWeGo



Delivering a healthy pre-viable fetus is killing it, no two ways around it.
A previable fetus can not survive induced labor and never outside the womb.

Jim

So this justifies abortion to you?

No one said to once to deliver an 11 week old fetus but to wait until it had a chance.

 

[Davidnic]

So this justifies abortion to you?

No one said to once to deliver an 11 week old fetus but to wait until it had a chance.

Yeah I went through the tread with search and the earliest someone said to try delivery was around 20 weeks.

I think there was some shooting past each other. Bene and I assumed that inducing labor was only being considered when there was viability, even at a very minuscule level. Here was the post where we discussed that:

Jim is referring to the AZ case with Sister McBride. An induced labor would not be considered an abortion as long as the fetus was viable. Now, even if the fetus was not normally viable and they would try some radical methods to save the child because the mother at that point was about to die...it would not be an abortion.

Not if it is not intended. Again a difference between unforeseen unintended, foreseen unintended and foreseen intended. It can be the foreseen unintended consequence if you do what you can to save the child withing whatever limits are available and what you do is not the direct cause of death.

In the McBride case it was the foreseen and intended result of the direct action taken. Not saying they did it with joy or wanted to have to do it...but when you go in to kill in order to save abortion (as the Church defines it) is foreseen and is the intention.

Inducing delivery, even at 20 weeks where the death is likely, is still not an abortion because the induced labor is the only thing you can do to try and save the child and the mother. If fetal death is likely it is still the foreseen unintended consequence and you do whatever you can to save both. But a child can live at that point, even if not optimal.

But in the McBride case the child was directly killed and removed to save a life in trade for another. That is, by Church definition an abortion and illicit.

Now we do not know the exact procedure. But from how the Church defines it and what the Bishop said, it was not an induced labor or an extraction where there was a chance to save the fetus. It was a direct killing to save another life.

I do not know what you read on priests for life, but I linked to the Moral Theology on the ectopic in post 56 I believe, and it explains the logic as I learned it in school (all levels, High school, College and Grad). And that is there is a difference in foreseen unintended and foreseen intended. And an abortion is the direct intended killing of a fetus. Killing and death must be the focus and intention of the act. And it was in the McBride case, even if the circumstance that brought about the act was trying to save a life that can not justify the direct and intended act of killing an innocent.

You then clarified that the issue was delivery of a pre-viable fetus and I said:

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.

This thread has been a bit back and forth. So it gets hard to sort at times.

I think at this point we all agree that in moral theology the delivery of a pre-viable fetus (which at this point is somewhere below 20-22 weeks) is considered an abortion.

 

[benedictaoo]

So what do you do at 11 weeks and you get a diagnosis and the prognosis is not good?

You sure as heck do not abort but get with your doctor, know your options what he can do if you begin to experience eminent danger and need emergency saving.

You need to go to as long as you can.

I suspect they only want to abort at 11 weeks to get it over with and because some folks think in their mind that an abortion at 11 weeks is some how okay and better then one at 20 weeks or older.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So this justifies abortion to you?

No one said to once to deliver an 11 week old fetus but to wait until it had a chance.

According to the reports, the Doctors could not wait until the fetus reached viability.

I',m not saying it justifies a direct abortion.

However, it may justify an indirect abortion which is licit in the eyes of the Church.

My conflict is that the Church does not view the case being spoken about, as an indirect abortion.

They see it as an intentional killing of the fetus. I don't see it as intentional at all.


Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

No, I didn't say it justifies a direct abortion.

It may justify an indirect abortion however, and is licit in the eyes of the Church.

My conflict is that the Church does not view the case being spoken about, as an indirect abortion.

The see it as an intentional killing of the fetus. I don't see it as intentional at all.


Jim

No such thing exists as a indirect abortion Jim. They are ALL by its very intent, definition and nature, a direct abortion.

If there ever was an oxymoron, this is it.

Like jumbo shrimp.

 

[benedictaoo]

Jim, what is tripping you up is that you arbitrarily define abortion as being a baby dieing in utero.

No. Abortion is when we intentionally kill the fetus for what ever reason...

Theology 101- we can not do evil as a way to do good.

Another problem with your argument is abortion is not a neutral act. It is intrinsicly evil and circumstances can not change it being evil.

 

[Davidnic]

According to the reports, the Doctors could not wait until the fetus reached viability.

I',m not saying it justifies a direct abortion.

However, it may justify an indirect abortion which is licit in the eyes of the Church.

My conflict is that the Church does not view the case being spoken about, as an indirect abortion.

They see it as an intentional killing of the fetus. I don't see it as intentional at all.


Jim

Well part of it is because many doctors say that such a case where you can not attempt to go to viability is pretty much impossible. So the Church sides with that thought.

There are many comments by doctors in this case who are puzzled by what has been released in relation to how it could have happened the way it is described. I'll try to find the one guy who deals with it in detail and has a debate with another doctor.

at the end of the day it is you can not kill an innocent to save an innocent. There is no situation where that is an easy call. But the moral act remains unchanged.

This is why the Church is pretty much unable to support modern warfare under just war anymore. Because the nature of modern weapons pretty much reflexively causes innocent death by their wide ranging nature rather than in an avoidable way like pre WWII weapons and methods.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

You sure as heck do not abort but get with your doctor, know your options what he can do if you begin to experience eminent danger and need emergency saving.

According to Church teaching, when you need emergency saving, the doctor can do nothing because it would require terminating the pregnancy, regardless of how that would be done and that is an abortion in the eyes of the Church and never licit. You will have to face the fact that the doctors will have to step back and let nature take its course, which means your death.

Now ask yourself, could the doctors really do this?

You need to go to as long as you can.

Wonderful goal but not obtainable in the case of the mother in Arizona.

I suspect they only want to abort at 11 weeks to get it over with and because some folks think in their mind that an abortion at 11 weeks is some how okay and better then one at 20 weeks or older.

This is a cynicle view which has no support in any news article I've read on this particular case.

They gain nothing by getting over with it as you put it.

If anything, from a financial point of view, they gain more by keeping you in the hospital under their care for as long as insurance allows them to.
However, to believe this would be their objective, would also be cynical.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No such thing exists as a indirect abortion Jim. They are ALL by its very intent, definition and nature, a direct abortion.

If there ever was an oxymoron, this is it.

Like jumbo shrimp.

A direct abortion is when you show up at a clinic or hospital with the sole purpose of terminating the pregnancy.

An indirect abortion is when termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save your life in an emergency. But this is my definition, not the Church.

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

Jim, but abortion is a evil act, not morally neutral and if you don't believe that it really is always, in of itself purely evil, then that is why you have such a hard time with this.

The bottom line is, cutting through all of this- point black- can we commit serious grave mortal sin if it saves our life?

I think you know the answer to that.

The only way this works for you is if abortion is morally neutral where circumstances make it evil or not.

It's not neutral but always evil.

So... you know what Jesus says about that.

I get the human logical understanding of this but it flies in the face of Christianity and in a real bad way.

 

[benedictaoo]

A direct abortion is when you show up at a clinic or hospital with the sole purpose of terminating the pregnancy.

An indirect abortion is when termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save your life in an emergency. But this is my definition, not the Church.

Jim

Ah, no Jim, you are so wrong. The Church does NOT define it that way. Abortion is a moral intrinsic evil and nothing ever makes it okay.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

Jim, but abortion is a evil act, not morally neutral and if you don't believe that it really is always, in of itself purely evil, then that is why you have such a hard time with this.

A direct abortion is a intrinsically immoral act.

An indirect abortion is not.

The definition of what constitutes an indirect abortion verses a direct abortion, is the line I have issue with.

The bottom line is, cutting through all of this- point black- can we commit serious grave mortal sin if it saves our life?

Right and for sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met.

Do you believe the Doctors and Sr McBride committed mortal sin? Do you believe the mother did?

I get the human logical understanding of this but it flies in the face of Christianity and in a real bad way.

Well if it was that clear, theologians and canon lawyers would be debating this specific case.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Ah, no Jim, you are so wrong. The Church does NOT define it that way. Abortion is a moral intrinsic evil and nothing ever makes it okay.

I know the Church doesn't define it that way, which is why I have a problem with how the Church defines it.


Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

I know the Church doesn't define it that way, which is why I have a problem with how the Church defines it.


Jim

and who is right and who knows better? The Church Christ gave His authority to, to teach us pertaining to these matters or what we see from our perspective?

I know how you feel and the issue you have with it and I get it but when we apply our Christian faith to it- we are left with one thing- this life was never meant to be permanente for any of us.

 

[benedictaoo]

benedictaoo



A direct abortion is a intrinsically immoral act.

An indirect abortion is not.

No such thing exists as a indirect abortion. an abortion, by it's very nature is directly killing a baby, which is why it is an intrinsic evil.

Nothing on this earth could ever make it a morally acceptable act, nothing, not even if mom was in danger... which is why the Church says in this case, the mother is not allowed to do this in order to save her life.

Abortion, for all reasons, for any reason, in all situations and circumstances isn't morally acceptable.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

When the mother is in eminent danger of death, it is licit over that of an abortion becuase of the intent.

As long as the child is viable. If it's only 11 weeks old, then that's an abortion. If it's 25 weeks, that's licit. Now, viability isn't a set point in time and babies born prior to 24 weeks have survived, so the line might be fuzzy but at 11 weeks old that's definitely illicit.

"The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Institutions" put out by the USCCB and quoted by Bp. Olmstead in his letter responding to the case in point defines abortion as "the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus".

"Abortion" means the same thing as "miscarriage" -- a pregnancy cut short. If you induce labor prior to viability, you are not simply causing the baby to be born prematurely (and wear teenie-tiny little adorable preemie outfits), you are causing a miscarriage -- an abortion.

Also, you can only induce (post-viability) for grave reason -- that means there must be a serious problem with the mother (or the child -- I am no neonatologist, but I can't think of a case in which it would benefit the child to be born prematurely) which would be benefited by inducing labor. The practice of some hospitals, even Catholic hospitals, of giving up on the child if it has a serious deformity (such as anencephaly) and inducing labor is not licit. They figure, "Why bother letting the child live a few more weeks inside his mother if he's just going to die when he's born anyway?" but that's not good thinking (article in 'Our Sunday Visitor').

There must be a grave problem with the mother to induce labor and it must be beyond the point of viability.

 

[benedictaoo]

I agree, but if you treat the mother and labor induces or it causes a miscarriage, that is unintended.

The crux is, is there any case or said scenario where having to abort at 11 weeks or mom will die at 11 weeks, exists?

The proper way IMO, not being a doctor mind you, is to just go as far as you can where the baby as some kind of chance to survive.

 

[benedictaoo]

and here is where Jim is struggling... taking the risk by going to 20 or better weeks.

He does not agree a mother should risk it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

I agree, but if you treat the mother and labor induces or it causes a miscarriage, that is unintended.

Thats what an indirect abortion is.

However, if you induce the mother prior to viability in order to terminate the pregnancy, thats a direct abortion and illicit, regardless of the reasons for doing it.

I hope we now have the terms defined.

The crux is, is there any case or said scenario where having to abort at 11 weeks or mom will die at 11 weeks, exists?

Yes, the very case we're talking about in Arizona. Without the abortion, the mother woud've died, according to the doctors.

The proper way IMO, not being a doctor mind you, is to just go as far as you can where the baby as some kind of chance to survive.

Agreed, but then, you'd be presuming the doctors in this case didn't.


Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

and here is where Jim is struggling... taking the risk by going to 20 or better weeks.

He does not agree a mother should risk it.

No, thats not what I'm struggling with.

If there is a shot at getting to 20 weeks, by all means, do it.

But the doctors claim is that they had to act immediately.

Not being on the case and not being a doctor, I can't say they were wrong in their prognosis.

Jim