Abortion hypothetical

[benedictaoo]

I believe inducing labor would've killed the mother. The woman was seriously ill with pulmonary hypertension. Labor would've been a problem for her.

Jim

Then no labor... do a c section. what excuse now will you give why that can't happen?

and at what point do we just take the risk in trying to save the baby?

It boils down to this; would you risk your life if it saves another or if keeps you from sucking your baby out into a sink?

It comes down to this; can we use murder to save mothers?

Now tell me this for the love of goodness... how can a mother go through an abortion and not drop dead from the stress of that? and not go through a labor or a c section? To do abortions, labor is also induced, those PBA sure are induced labor.

Take the chance, it's YOUR CHILD for crying out loud.

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.

 

[Davidnic]

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.


Jim

The mother opposed the abortion and Sister Mcbride told her it was allowable under Church law. So since a mortal sin, required for excommunication, requires the mother to know that it is wrong and choose it anyway. She thought she was doing something allowable at the advice of the designated Church representative there.

That is why it fell on McBride and the mother and possibly the Doctors are not guilty of formal cooperation. Her job there was to enforce the ethical norms of the Church. And she told all of them this was allowable.

And the doctors were not trying to save both with a direct abortion. That means they abandoned one for the other.

And yes, moral theologians will debate this. There are several aspects being constantly missed.

Bottom line is the nun has had the excommunication lifted within days. Which means she went through the process to do so.

 

[benedictaoo]

Oh, I didn't know that the hypothetical given to me was a real case.

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

No, it's not Gwen. You can do what ever you need to but you can not directly kill the baby as the way you will save yourself.

If you deliver it early, you are hoping it will live, your aim is not killing it like in abortion. The goal is to kill the baby.

But at some point- we have to say, I must take the risk in doing this the moral way. If your odds are 5%, then so be it. This is God's will.

It's called martyrdom and Truth is worth dying for. Those who seek to save their life will lose it, those who lose it will save it.

 

[Davidnic]

The mother has four other children and a husband. Her value in life far outweighs the fetus in this circumstance.

One, she could have 15 children it does not make her more important than the fetus or the fetus more important than her. Or her more important than a childless woman.

Two, the number of children was a misreport picked up by NPR after misquoting a local TV news story interviewing a woman in a Catholic shop who stated the number of kids she personally had and not the woman. At least that is what I found at the time of the story tracing the news reports back. And that is in the other threads on this.

Three. Again, no one life is outweighs another. We just do not believe that. That the fetus was dying or would die does not make them less of a person that an Olympic runner in perfect health. You try to save both and you can never kill one person, even a sick or dying one, to save another. You try to save both and no matter what you do not kill.

The value of a life is not based on how much time in the world they have left. The value is simply that they are. It does not depend on health of one opposed to another.

 

[benedictaoo]

Let's call this a crazed killer then. The crazed killer tells you that if you kill two other people, he will not kill you. However, if you refuse, he will have to kill you and the two other people. What do you do?

What would I do? I would say, hey, this is where my FAITH and my Christianity kicks in and I would do what it RIGHT! Tell the killer, you will have to kill us all then cuz I'm not taking another life as the way to save mine, I'm not effed up like.

I like your analog but the thing is, the baby IS NOT a crazed killer... that is the point, the baby is innocent. It should not be treated as if it is a unjust aggressor.

And if you could find a way to wrangle the gun from the crazed killer, you could kill him in self defense and save the innocent lives.

A baby in the womb is not that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

benedictaoo

Then no labor... do a c section. what excuse now will you give why that can't happen?

How the abortion was performed, I don't know. However, if they did a C-section on an 11 week old fetus, they know the fetus would die.

As it was, my daughter had induced labor on her 20 week baby, and they said that the labor alone would kill the fetus, if he were alive to begin with.

It boils down to this; would you risk your life if it saves another or if keeps you from sucking your baby out into a sink?

But the risk you're making isn't going to save the baby's life, you're both going to die if you do nothing. Thats the difference.


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

I think it is also time to state that everyone here is glad the mother is alive and sad the child is dead. No matter where they fall on the moral theological discussion of this.

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think it is also time to state that everyone here is glad the mother is alive and sad the child is dead. No matter where they fall on the moral theological discussion of this.

Not so much. [glad]

Baby could have been a Bishop... a priest, a Saint.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I daresay the mom is probably heart broken EVEN IF she thinks the Church allowed for this. Mothers have a hole in their hearts to lose a child... i cannot imagine she is getting thru this easily - even now.

I doubt very much she finally - in the end - is glad to be alive and her baby gone.

 

[benedictaoo]

benedictaoo



How the abortion was performed, I don't know. However, if they did a C-section on an 11 week old fetus, they know the fetus would die.

As it was, my daughter had induced labor on her 20 week baby, and they said that the labor alone would kill the fetus, if he were alive to begin with.





But the risk you're making isn't going to save the baby's life, you're both going to die if you do nothing. Thats the difference.


Jim

YOU DON'T SUCK YOUR BABY INTO A SINK!!!! YOU DO NOT DELIBERATELY KILL A CHILD AS THE WAY YOU SAVE ANYBODY!!!!!!!!

Deliver it and let it be counted as a person that matters! Don't abort it. abortion is cruel, inhumane and painful to the baby.

Deliver the child and try to save it and give it some dignity as the person God created.

What's so hard about that concept?

 

[Colin]

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

The doctors must do all they can to save the lives of the mother and child .
It is , however , the will of God that the child must not be killed to save the mother .
That is a mighty heavy cross to bear , especially for the family involved .
May God give them all the help they need in their agony .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The doctors must do all they can to save the lives of the mother and child .
It is , however , the will of God that the child must not be killed to save the mother .
That is a mighty heavy cross to bear , especially for the family involved .
May God give them all the help they need in their agony .

 

[WarriorAngel]

The doctors must do all they can to save the lives of the mother and child .
It is , however , the will of God that the child must not be killed to save the mother .
That is a mighty heavy cross to bear , especially for the family involved .
May God give them all the help they need in their agony .

So true.
If the mom could redo this - i would bet she would change the outcome.

 

[kittycat7]

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?

 

[Davidnic]

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?

Ectopic pregnancy.

This sums up what I learned studying Moral Theology pretty well: link

Short form is:

First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.

Source
​

So there is a difference between abortion and unintentional death of the fetus where you try to save both.

 

[kittycat7]

Ectopic pregnancy.

This sums up what I learned studying Moral Theology pretty well: link

Short form is:

First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a "secondary effect." For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion.

There also occur, very rarely, situations in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the child needs to be delivered early. But this can be done safely with a normal, induced delivery, or a caesarean section.

Source
​

So there is a difference between abortion and unintentional death of the fetus where you try to save both.

Thanks for answering my question. I'm glad to hear that the mother's life can be saved. However, if the doctor doesn't attempt an embryo transferal, I'm not sure how an indirect abortion is any different than a direct abortion? If abortion is murder, this seems kind of like saying that while it's wrong to stab someone, it's okay to put a little cyanide in their coffee because you don't know if there's enough to kill them. (Sorry for the bad analogy, but it was all I could think of.) I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I just don't understand why having an abortion indirectly is any different. It seems like using a loophole to me.

 

[Davidnic]

Thanks for answering my question. I'm glad to hear that the mother's life can be saved. However, if the doctor doesn't attempt an embryo transferal, I'm not sure how an indirect abortion is any different than a direct abortion? If abortion is murder, this seems kind of like saying that while it's wrong to stab someone, it's okay to put a little cyanide in their coffee because you don't know if there's enough to kill them. (Sorry for the bad analogy, but it was all I could think of.) I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I just don't understand why having an abortion indirectly is any different. It seems like using a loophole to me.

It's not rude and some would agree with you about it seeming as a loophole.

It comes down to the fact that in Moral Theology you look at things as:

Object
Intention
Circumstance

The difference here is that a direct abortion is both a different act and intention than an indirect one. Something like a direct and intended abortion is an intrinsic evil so circumstance and intention can not change it to good.

But the removal of the tube, as long as there is some attempt to save the child, no matter how remote or hopeless, is the removal of the tube. You are not going in and destroying the fetus, but the fetus dies as you try to save everyone.

In some of the cases we have been talking about here a doctor goes and directly kills the fetus, not removes and tries to save it, but directly kills and then removes or uses a curate procedure as removal.

I understand that the distinctions may seem fine and even almost manufactured to some. But they actually have strong grounding in moral theology as to why they are different.

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

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?

presuming 100% is part of the problem. Why not presume unicorns too. There is no reason to put in unnecessary unrealisms

 

[2WhomShallWeGo]

Let's call this a crazed killer then. The crazed killer tells you that if you kill two other people, he will not kill you. However, if you refuse, he will have to kill you and the two other people. What do you do?

You become a murder yourself of course. Or at least that's what some would say but they'd couch it in nicer terms.
So No. That is not what you do, but rather you follow Gods law not the crazed killers. The answer is that you would always attempt anything else no matter how gloomy you thought your chances are.