Abortion hypothetical

[JimR-OCDS]

Shannon

That is not my understanding of it. All attempts to bring baby to viability ought to be attempted.

Agreed, but not always possible.

But the death of a baby being born early is not morally evil. In cases where death is likely or imminent, double effect applies here. Same as it does in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

Well, if what you do causes the death of the baby, the priest for life said its immoral.


Jim

 

[_Shannon_]

Giving a mother chemotherapy while pregnant is going to kill the baby--in your opinion--is chemo allowed or not allowed?

 

[Davidnic]

Well, if what you do causes the death of the baby, the priest for life said its immoral.

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.

 

[_Shannon_]

Unfortunately the CDF has been silent on the matter in the past several decades, so in these extreme situations, one really has to do the best they know to do, My understanding is that of Davidnic...that the intention has to be to other than killing the baby in order for the action to be licit, and the action cannot direct and intentionally bring the demise of the baby, but has to be an unintended side effect.

I would love for the CDF to speak clearly on the matter, as the technology has changed so, so much.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Giving a mother chemotherapy while pregnant is going to kill the baby--in your opinion--is chemo allowed or not allowed?

All pursuits to help the mom - if absolutely necessary - is allowed. If there is no other recourse. And the baby could survive - since it is not directly given to be an abortificant.
A direct abortion, tho, is a direct death to the child.

The Church will not suggest life saving measures not be given, and have hopes the child survives and be unaffected - which puts it all in God's hands.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Of Interest:

http://www.uffl.org/vol12/bowring12.pdf




CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith

This principle applies in other pregnancy complications as well. With severe hemorrhaging, for example, if nothing is done, both will die. In respecting the life of the mother, the physician must act directly on the uterus. At that time the uterus loses its ability to support the life of the embryo. The mother’s life is preserved and there has been no intentional attack on the child. The mother and the uterus have been directly treated; a secondary effect is the death of the child.
Another example arises in the treatment of uterine (endometrial) cancer during a pregnancy. The common treatments of uterine cancer are primarily hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) and sometimes chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Again, taking the life of the baby is not intended, but a hysterectomy does mean the removal of the womb and the death of the child. Yet, if a hysterectomy must be performed to save the life of the mother, the Church would deem the procedure morally licit.


Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.
This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

 

[benedictaoo]

Giving a mother chemotherapy while pregnant is going to kill the baby--in your opinion--is chemo allowed or not allowed?

I would not do it if it is. I would deliver the first chance I could and hope the best for us both.

 

[benedictaoo]

Shannon



Well, if what you do causes the death of the baby, the priest for life said its immoral.


Jim

no. the intent is what makes it immoral. you don't intend to kill the baby, you intend to treat mom and hope baby lives.

 

[benedictaoo]

Allow the baby to be born? You mean induced labor?

Thats an abortion according to the Church.

If inducing labor causes the death of the fetus, its an abortion and morally illicit.

Jim

no. it's not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Giving a mother chemotherapy while pregnant is going to kill the baby--in your opinion--is chemo allowed or not allowed?

Yes, and if the chemotherapy kills the fetus, its called an indirect abortion, which is licit.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

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.

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.

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.

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 fetal death is likely it is still the foreseen unintended consequence and you do whatever you can to save both.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

And that is there is a difference in foreseen unintended and foreseen intended. And an abortion is the direct intended killing of a fetus.

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.

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.

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

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Unfortunately the CDF has been silent on the matter in the past several decades, so in these extreme situations, one really has to do the best they know to do, My understanding is that of Davidnic...that the intention has to be to other than killing the baby in order for the action to be licit, and the action cannot direct and intentionally bring the demise of the baby, but has to be an unintended side effect.
.

Thats correct, the intention of the procedure can not be directed at killing the fetus.

However, as I stated in my post to David, if they induced labor to terminate the pregnancy, they most certainly knew the 11 week old fetus would not survive and therefore would be seen as a direct killing of the fetus, which is illicit.

A non-direct abortion would be in the case of treating cancer, which they know is probably going to kill the fetus, and is licit.

Jim

 

[Davidnic]

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

And I learned this from 6 different priests at multiple levels of education all with formal study and teaching credentials in moral theology. And it is spelled out in many moral theology handbooks. Like the ones that were sources for the link I provided.

So I really don't know what else to say except happy new year Jim, I know you are not trying to be contradictory and I am not trying to just say the same thing over and over. So I will just leave the multiple posts I have here for themselves.

Seriously happy new year. I hope it is a relatively peaceful one for OBOB. It could use it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And I learned this from 6 different priests at multiple levels of education all with formal study and teaching credentials in moral theology. And it is spelled out in many moral theology handbooks. Like the ones that were sources for the link I provided.

So I really don't know what else to say except happy new year Jim, I know you are not trying to be contradictory and I am not trying to just say the same thing over and over. So I will just leave the multiple posts I have here for themselves.

Seriously happy new year. I hope it is a relatively peaceful one for OBOB. It could use it.

Dave, I got different answers from various priest, depending on what side of the political ideological wagon they were on. Conservatives said, it is an abortion if inducing labor causes the death of the fetus regardless of the reasons, liberals said, it isn't an abortion and therefore licit.

In thinking about the case in Arizona, I do not believe it was induced labor. The mother had pulmonary hypertension and it would seem to me, that labor would be dangerous for her, same is true of a C-section. So, we're left with suspecting that the fetus was extracted through other means, which directly killed it.

I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm more uncomfortable letting the mother die.

But, I'm still praying for some understanding on why the Church would demand it be such.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you too.

In Christ Jesus
Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

Thats correct, the intention of the procedure can not be directed at killing the fetus.

However, as I stated in my post to David, if they induced labor to terminate the pregnancy, they most certainly knew the 11 week old fetus would not survive and therefore would be seen as a direct killing of the fetus, which is illicit.

A non-direct abortion would be in the case of treating cancer, which they know is probably going to kill the fetus, and is licit.

Jim

but they are not inducing labor to kill the baby. that is not the intent. It is to let it be born and let it take it's natural course. The intent is not to kill anyone but to save both even if it is not possible.

Abortion is not to do anything but kill the baby to solve every one's problems.

and who says the baby can't go to 20 weeks where it can have a small chance? Choosing to do so is not killing it because we know it can not survive but the intent is to try to save it even if it is in vain.

a person who inducing labor early in order to allow for some major miracle to occur is not an abortion. Abortion is the on purpose intentional killing of the baby.

Let it be born, give it some life and give it, it's dignity.

 

[benedictaoo]

Dave, I got different answers from various priest, depending on what side of the political ideological wagon they were on. Conservatives said, it is an abortion if inducing labor causes the death of the fetus regardless of the reasons, liberals said, it isn't an abortion and therefore licit.

In thinking about the case in Arizona, I do not believe it was induced labor. The mother had pulmonary hypertension and it would seem to me, that labor would be dangerous for her, same is true of a C-section. So, we're left with suspecting that the fetus was extracted through other means, which directly killed it.

I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm more uncomfortable letting the mother die.

But, I'm still praying for some understanding on why the Church would demand it be such.

Anyway, Happy New Year to you too.

In Christ Jesus
Jim

I would like to know how "extracting through other means" is any less stressful to a mother?

and look, at what point do you say, I have to put myself at a higher risk to do what is right?

It may have put her at a higher risk, but she still could have survived it. If doctors have to work harder, then they will have to work harder then.. it's LIFE, it's worth it.

The bottom line is, abortion is cost effective and that is why doctors push it instead of letting the baby be born no matter how small it is.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I would like to know how "extracting through other means" is any less stressful to a mother?

and look, at what point do you say, I have to put myself at a higher risk to do what is right?

It may have put her at a higher risk, but she still could have survived it. If doctors have to work harder, then they will have to work harder then.. it's LIFE, it's worth it.

The bottom line is, abortion is cost effective and that is why doctors push it instead of letting the baby be born no matter how small it is.

I don't know I wasn't there to decide for the doctors on what other means they should've used to save the mother's life.

I want to wind-down here, because I'm still searching for the answer, and turning toward's God for the answer.

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

The answer is not lost, you have been given it.

The baby is a person with a soul, thus we can not intentionally kill it.

Abortion is killing it because that is what the intent is.

Inducing labor, treating it as if it matters, is not an abortion.

So what? if it can't survive outside the womb... that is not a reason to kill it on purpose.

Let it be born and put it all in God's hands.

 

[Davidnic]

I'm uncomfortable with this, but I'm more uncomfortable letting the mother die.

But, I'm still praying for some understanding on why the Church would demand it be such.

Because we can not kill an innocent to save a life. We can not demand the child sacrifice themselves or make the choice for him/her. We can say the moral thing is to try to bring the pregnancy to term even if that risks both lives. Both may die but no one is murdered.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

. Both may die but no one is murdered.

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