hopeful1 Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Ok, i've always thought that the church was always 100% pro-life, however i'm taking Critical thinking in college, which is a class where we talk about moral issues with logic, and my prof. made the claim that the Catholic church says that abortion is permissible if the mother's life is in danger, and as soon as he said that i corrected him and said that wasn't true, and then everybody stared at me like i'm an idiot. I thought it over a bit, and i know that in that situation, every precaution must be taken to try to save the life of both the mother and baby. Also according to the double effect theory, if there is no other way to save both, such as in an etopic pregnancy, or if all other measures to save both have failed, then the mother may decide what to do at that point (i'm a little sketchy about that last part). Also, in the case of etopic pregnancies, the fallopian tube must be removed to avoid direct harm to the fetus, but although the fetus is killed in the process the intention was not to intentionally kill the fetus (which would not be considered an abortion) but to save the life of the mother. I then clarified this with my prof. after class. Am i right? If not, do i need to go to confession for giving false information about a church teaching that and the possibility i may have misled others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 From what I've read on the subject, I think your information was correct. Even if you weren't correct, I don't think you would have had to go to confession because you didn't intentionally mislead. You did the right thing to me, bro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeful1 Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 so for future reference, is "life of mother" permissible, in certain curcumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FutureSoror Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 [quote name='hopeful1' date='Oct 7 2004, 10:27 PM'] so for future reference, is "life of mother" permissible, in certain curcumstances? [/quote] Affirmative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 That procedure that you're talking about, that is the double effect of having surgery is what is called an indirect abortion, and is not an abortion in that one is not directly killing the fetus, nor intending to do so. Abortion in the common term is the direct and deliberate termination of the fetus' life. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT[/url] I think you were right in telling the prof that the church does not permit abortion to save the life of the mother. It's not permitted, period. Procedure to save the mother, i.e. resulting in indirect abortion, is. The way your prof was referring to abortion, I'm presuming, was the direct and deliberate abortion and his assertion could have been misleading. He needed to be more specific and it's good that you clarified that with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfroNova No Limit Soldier Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I'm not in the medical field, but I am CERTAIN there is a more appropriate term for "indirect abortion" - because it's not an abortion. We talked about this on Pro-Life Sunday. Any nurses/doctors out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 The term abortion is very general and does not apply only to surgical or chemical abortion. An abortion is simply any premature expulsion of the child. It can be either spontaneous (i.e., a miscarriage) or induced (i.e., surgical or chemical abortion). As far as this life of the mother stuff is concerned, the professor in question was misleading. Ash got it pretty close. When the life of the mother is threatened by some problem or disease, then that disease may be treated. The child cannot be treated as a disease. The death of the child may result from the treatment of the disease (such as the removal of a uterine tumor during pregnancy), and this death can be tolerated as an evil, applying the Principle of Double Effect. However, the intended action itself cannot be intrinsically evil. Therefore, you could not directly kill a child in womb due to some apparent (or alleged) risk the child itself may cause to the mothers life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 (edited) ok, the mother will die if u dont save her, the baby will most likely die anyway, whether u save the mother or not, what then??? Edited October 8, 2004 by Noel's angel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Noel, What if, what if, what if.................... A moral absolute is just that: absolute. The Child (so long as it is alive)can never be intentionally aborted. Never. There are no circumstances where this would be morally permissable. It is never permissable to use evil means, even to achieve a good end. The principle of double effect only works when then intended act is morally neutral. Abortion is not morally neutral. Something else you said bothers me as well. You said "the baby will most likely die anyway". "Most likely" is subjective. It is certainly no way to justify murdering the child, even if it will save the life of the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 ok, im sorry, i was just wondering, thats all. i dont know as much as many of the other people on this board and thats why i asked the question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 [quote name='Noel's angel' date='Oct 8 2004, 04:28 PM'] ok, im sorry, i was just wondering, thats all. i dont know as much as many of the other people on this board and thats why i asked the question [/quote] No need to apologize. I hope you didn't take my post as an attack. I just figured it was a devils advocate type argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 it was worded badly on my behalf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musturde Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 sorry, but did the Church actually say that the mother can't have an abortion if her life's at risk? If the baby was for sure going to die for sure, would it then be alright if you killed the baby if not aborting meant you would kill both people (and you knew for sure that was going to happen)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Natural death because of a complication or illness is not killing. Abortion is murder--deliberately killing an innocent person. It is unacceptable no matter what. You cannot murder one person to save another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 When it is a situation where the mothers life is in jeopardy because of her pregnancy, you do whatever is necessary to save the mother. If in that process the baby does not survive, it is not abortion. So yeah, what ashwednesday said 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