Crusader_4 Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 For me Abortion is non-negotiable its wrong however someone told me that if the Wife is in danger or the child will not be born and she is in danger that it could b allowed...i didnt believe this when i heard it and i wanted it clarified could someone help please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Well, the moral argument goes something like "Consider two senarios: 1/ Where doing nothing will kill both mother and child, acting will save the child but will kill the mother (say, emergency caesarian, mother has advanced AIDS or leukemia say). 2/ Where doing nothing will kill both mother and child, acting will save the mother but will kill the child (say, ectopic pregnancy)." in both cases what would be the best course of action, and who gets to decide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 20, 2004 Author Share Posted June 20, 2004 (edited) Thanx Random but do you think a decision like this rests with the Priest and the Mother also does it make abortion excuseable? like ur a little vague here? Also not to knock you here Random cuz ur a great guy i would also like to hear Mother Church's answer on this one? Edited June 20, 2004 by Crusader_4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 The Church says you try to save both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jun 20 2004, 11:50 PM'] The Church says you try to save both. [/quote] What a diplomatic answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 No its an honest answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Knight, La Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 i talked with a priest who said in such cases as random listed the proper course of action is to try and save both however it is better that one should live than both should die. he referred to the "law of unintended consequences" which i believe is just a moral theory but to give an example in scenario one, the ceasarian is a moral obligation (to save a life that might be saved) however it must be done with strictest care for saving the mother's life also if she dies because of it, it's not because you let her die but rather it couldn't be avoided. in scenario two, the operation must be performed for the mother's life but if there is a way to save the baby that must be done also. the church has always said it is wrong to kill which is what abortion is (the purposeful aborting of a life) however sometimes actions do have consequences which weren't intended (you're not trying to kill the mother or the baby only to save them if you can) and those the church says you're not culpable for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 So for example in a case where a mother is having a perfectly okay pregnancy but its a guarantee she will die but the child will live you try to save both if possible...so an abortion i.e. the killing of the child would never be acceptable then? (Just want to make sure) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 *bump* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeTeamFamily Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 the only situation i know of where its allowed is in the case where the egg accidentely for whatever reason beyond human control gets implanted in the fallopian tube before it reaches the uterus......this puts both the child and the mother in great risk of losing both and therefore, it is acceptable to remove the child i would say that if you are in the situation where you think it may be ok....talk to a priest and pray about it a bunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 (edited) Well i am not in a situation but i know of many women that if they got pregnant again would seriously be in a life death situation. Well also one way i see it after that canonization of the saint who gave up her life for her child is that the Mother should perhaps give up her life for the child and imitate Christ....now at the same time its easier for me to say being a man. I just would like some clarification on the issue because to me abortion is non-negotiable its murder...i am just wondering if its nesscary and for lack of better words an option in certain situations without sin being present. Edited June 21, 2004 by Crusader_4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeTeamFamily Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 i think this may be an appropriate situation in which to use NFP then?.......otherwise its def one of the things where she should go talk with a priest and get some advice IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 21, 2004 Author Share Posted June 21, 2004 yes thats how i feel as well...its a tuff one eh thanks everyone for their help thanx mary's knight, Lankyswimmer,and RandomProddy, cmotherprl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 [quote name='Crusader_4' date='Jun 20 2004, 11:07 PM'] So for example in a case where a mother is having a perfectly okay pregnancy but its a guarantee she will die but the child will live you try to save both if possible...so an abortion i.e. the killing of the child would never be acceptable then? (Just want to make sure) [/quote] Please give me an actual case where the mother can have an ok pregnancy but she is quarenteed to die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thankful Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 In response to lankyswimmer about the ectopic pregnancy (when the child implants in the fallopian tube). In this situation, it is only permissible to remove the entire tube, which as a consequence would also remove the child. It is not permissible to simply kill the baby. The intention here is that if the tube has become "diseased" because of improper implantation, then the tube could be removed to save the mother, and the death of the child is an unintended consequence. (I think it is called the principle of double-effect). This is an important distinction. I have actually heard of cases where an ectopic pregnancy proceeded until the baby was able to be delivered early and survived. However most physicians are quick to recommend abortion upon discovering the tubal pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now