Confused!

[bmb144]

Ok, hopefully someone can point me in the right direction. Basically this question is related to the topic of abortion in an in direct manner.

It was was taught to me in what RCIA I had, that when the life of the mother is at serious/life threatening risk aka reproductive cancer while pregnant or if the baby was serious malformed aka Cyclops or very rare defects that could endanger the mother....that the mother's life was to saved, even if that meant that the babies life could not be saved.

Recently I was reading a blog where its stated that the church teaches that the mother's life is not to be saved and that anything done to the child, that saves the mother but risks the baby under any circumstance is mortal sin "that cannot be forgiven".

Now, I have to admit that I am more than a little confused as I cannot find anything to clearly prove/deny what the web blog was saying. I am wondering if someone can point me toward a clear teaching on this issue?

IHL

[brandelynmarie]

[b] "Exceptions"[/b]

The idea of a total ban on all abortions makes some people uncomfortable. After all, we’ve been told for years that there are situations in which abortion, though a poor choice, is the best option. That, however, is untrue. Abortion always claims a human person’s life, and therefore is never an appropriate choice.
The "big lie" theory says if an untrue statement is repeated often enough, the people will start to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous mantra that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity and threat to the mother’s life.
[b]Rape and incest[/b]
Rape and incest are similar in the sense that both are criminal acts. In our system of justice, we punish the criminal. We do not punish the victim, nor do we punish the criminal’s children. We are told, however, that if pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, offering the victim an abortion is the compassionate thing to do. No woman should be "forced to carry that monster’s child," we are told.
The trauma of sexual assault is very real, and there is no intention here to downplay that. Abortion carries its own variety of trauma, however; women — even those who were victims of sexual assault — have reported years of physical, emotional and psychological difficulty following their abortions. Abortion did not solve their problem; it merely created additional ones.
There is also the very important fact that abortion takes the life of a living human being. The circumstances of conception may have been criminal, but the life of the newly-created human being is just as valuable as any other person’s. We do not put criminals’ innocent children to death in our culture; it simply isn’t done. It should not be done in this situation, either.
See also "Abortion — NOT Even When the Pregnancy is the Result of a Rape?" at [url="http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1014.pdf"]http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1014.pdf[/url] and "Abortion — NOT Even When the Pregnancy is the Result of Incest?" at [url="http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1012.pdf"]http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1012.pdf[/url]
[b]Fetal abnormality[/b]
Expectant parents can treat a diagnosis of fetal deformity or other form of birth defect almost as if it were death itself. It is not a physical death, but a death of hopes and dreams. Visions of a "normal" childhood — playing games, going to school, growing up and starting families of their own — vanish in a flash. Parents in this moment of despair are often told they should simply go ahead and terminate the pregnancy and get on with their lives.
The first problem here is that medical opinions can be just that — opinions. There are countless cases of parents who permitted their children to live and found out at birth that the experts were wrong. Also, imagine the horror of the parents who abort their child, only to see that they had destroyed a perfect baby. That is simply too difficult to comprehend.
Abortions in case of fetal abnormality, however, are just like all other abortions. They take the lives of innocent human beings. Abortions in these cases raise frightening prospects, for if it is all right to kill a disable person in the womb, could it one day be considered permissible to kill a disabled infant? A disabled adult? The answer is clearly "no" in those cases; why is there any question when the victim is a child in the womb?
See also "Abortion — NOT Even When the Child Might Have a Disability?" at [url="http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1011.pdf"]http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1011.pdf[/url]
[b]The mother’s life[/b]
This excuse for allowing abortion sounds reasonable. If the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life, it would seem that lethal force — an abortion — would be a permissible form of self-defense. The child is not really "attacking" the other, but his presence puts her at risk. It sounds like a good argument, but it simply isn’t true.
[url="http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/id/MjYwOQ/"]Hundreds of doctors have a signed a statement[/url] that puts the situation in perspective. The statement reads, "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."
A tubal (or ectopic) pregnancy, for instance, can indeed be life-threatening. But the treatment, even if it is fatal to the child, is not a "procured abortion." The doctor wants to save the baby, but knows that is unlikely. The baby’s death is an unintended consequence of the physician’s effort to save the mother. There are similar cases involving the treatment of cancer in which the baby’s death can be an unintended consequence. But again, these are medical treatments, not abortion.
It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that poses the threat of imminent death-are considered indirect abortions.
They are justified under a concept called the [url="http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/id/MTAwNDk4/"]"principle of double effect."[/url] Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified by the necessity of saving the mother’s life.
Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not considered abortion.
"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother."
-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president
"There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health."
-Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission
There is only one purpose for abortion — ending the life of the child. The "life of the mother" situation for abortion is simply bogus.
See also "Abortion — NOT Even When the Pregnancy Threatens the Life of the Mother?" at [url="http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1013.pdf"]http://www.all.org/upload/2010/02/23/1013.pdf[/url]

[brandelynmarie]

The above came from the [i]American Life Leaugue [/i][url="http://www.all.org/"]http://www.all.org/[/url] [i]. [/i]If you go to the Phatmass home page & click on resources, you will find tons of Apologetics. This is just one of the websites. Hope this helps you.

Edited December 12, 2011 by brandelynmarie

[EmilyAnn]

Wow brandelynmarie covered just about everything. But in case your interested this is the section of the Catechism on abortion.

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.[indent=1]Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.[/indent]
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:[indent=1]You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[/indent]
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.

[brandelynmarie]

[quote name='In His Light' timestamp='1323654410' post='2349486']

Recently I was reading a blog where its stated that the church teaches that the mother's life is not to be saved and that anything done to the child, that saves the mother but risks the baby under any circumstance is mortal sin "that cannot be forgiven".


IHL
[/quote]

Somehow I missed this part of your question. I'm sorry!

Does the Catholic church forgive abortion? Yes. Abortion is not unforgivable.

<<I have heard that there is excommunication from the church if you confess it to a priest... is that true?

Not quite. Anyone who gets an abortion, or serves as an enabler of abortion is, by virtue of that action, automatically excommunicated from the Church. The excommunicated are forbidden to take part in the Sacraments of the Church with the exception of Reconciliation. If those guilty of the sin of abortion repent of their wrongdoing, the Church encourages them to reconcile with God and His Church by receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Once this is done, the previously excommunicated is allowed back into the Church and can freely participate in the Sacraments.

Source here: [url="http://www.experts123.com/q/does-the-catholic-church-forgive-abortion.html"]http://www.experts123.com/q/does-the-catholic-church-forgive-abortion.html[/url]

[Papist]

Bottom-line is that the mother can be treated for you her ailment, but the treatment cannot be the intentional killing of the baby.

[bmb144]

Ok, that makes sense now.

One other scenario that I would like clarification on that indirectly relates to this-

The hormonal disorder Poly Cystic Ovary Syndrome can due to hormone level alone cause a women to be infertile if her testosterone level is too high and the other two hormone levels are too low. I was diagnosed with the condition at 14 years old and fall into the infertile category due to test results.

When my PCOS went nuts [constant bleeding for 3 years straight] [i] I was left with only one treatment option [due to not being able to take any form of hormones due to what it does to my blood pressure] [/i]and that was MEA aka microwave endometrial ablation...put simply destruction of the lining of the womb to stop excessive blood loss which out here in Australia is followed up by either IUD or tubal ligation through clips or in my case diathermy [burning] to prevent ectopic pregnancy. Standard procedure here regardless of hormone level.

I was given full approval from my then confessor as "it would not change the fact that I could not have kids" [his words]...yet other Catholics have told me that the priest was wrong and the operations are mortal sins.

Now...this also leaves me somewhat confused....my condition was serious, it was tearing me apart both physically and emotionally/mentally. When i spoke to ob/gyn she basically said "with your hormone levels not even IVF could get you pregnant', so when I told my then confessor that he had no problems with it.

Why is it that opinion differs so much? I worry about women who are younger than me with PCOS who are told that they cannot be treated due to it "preventing them from getting pregnant and that is a sin". I saw a teenage girl recently being bought pain killers to cope with it by her mum, who "would not have it treated because MEA is simply a hysterectomy without the removal of the organs".

I got rather angry but controlled it....

I'm sorry but isn't the health of the woman, whether young or older as I am more important than her organs? Isn't the case that as long as a medical condition is being treated and if there are no options such operations are ok?

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='In His Light' timestamp='1323835104' post='2350955']
Ok, that makes sense now.

One other scenario that I would like clarification on that indirectly relates to this-

The hormonal disorder Poly Cystic Ovary Syndrome can due to hormone level alone cause a women to be infertile if her testosterone level is too high and the other two hormone levels are too low. I was diagnosed with the condition at 14 years old and fall into the infertile category due to test results.

When my PCOS went nuts [constant bleeding for 3 years straight] [i]I was left with only one treatment option [due to not being able to take any form of hormones due to what it does to my blood pressure] [/i]and that was MEA aka microwave endometrial ablation...put simply destruction of the lining of the womb to stop excessive blood loss which out here in Australia is followed up by either IUD or tubal ligation through clips or in my case diathermy [burning] to prevent ectopic pregnancy. Standard procedure here regardless of hormone level.

I was given full approval from my then confessor as "it would not change the fact that I could not have kids" [his words]...yet other Catholics have told me that the priest was wrong and the operations are mortal sins.

Now...this also leaves me somewhat confused....my condition was serious, it was tearing me apart both physically and emotionally/mentally. When i spoke to ob/gyn she basically said "with your hormone levels not even IVF could get you pregnant', so when I told my then confessor that he had no problems with it.

Why is it that opinion differs so much? I worry about women who are younger than me with PCOS who are told that they cannot be treated due to it "preventing them from getting pregnant and that is a sin". I saw a teenage girl recently being bought pain killers to cope with it by her mum, who "would not have it treated because MEA is simply a hysterectomy without the removal of the organs".

I got rather angry but controlled it....

I'm sorry but isn't the health of the woman, whether young or older as I am more important than her organs? Isn't the case that as long as a medical condition is being treated and if there are no options such operations are ok?
[/quote]


IHL - I think cases have to be treated on an individual basis. In your case, there was no pregnancy to terminate and the procedure did not take away your fertility, it was already gone.

In some cases, things might be different, or doctors might be wrong. My niece was told that she was infertile because she had previously had chlamydia. She ended up having two children years later. The doctor was wrong. Her condition apparently didn't warrant any kind of surgery but if she had had a hysterectomy, she would have rendered herself infertile when she wasn't really at all.

All I am saying is that these things cannot be taken as 'across the board' situations with one solution for all women. The factors that need to be considered are many. But in the case of pregnancy, the welfare of the fetus should always be taken into consideration as s/he is a person, beloved by God.