mucho confused

[daugher-of-Mary]

You were right in correcting your teacher. The circumstance I think your teacher was probably referring to is the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby begins to form in the fallopian tube. In these circumstances, it is permissible to remove the fallopian tube which is a medical procedure to save the mother resulting in the indirect abortion of the unborn child. However, it would be wrong to "blast"the tube because that would be the direct abortion of the unborn child.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong!

[Birgitta Noel]

Also, remember the mother can always refuse care for herself, or request that her child be cared for first, or instead of her. Look at the example of Saint Gianna [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/giannamolla.html"](Click here to read more)[/url] she gave her life for her child. We always have the option to refuse/forego medical care.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='daugher-of-Mary' date='Oct 8 2004, 09:39 PM'] However, it would be wrong to "blast"the tube because that would be the direct abortion of the unborn child.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong! [/quote]
I think if the baby is alive "blasting" would be inadmissable... I'm not sure, though, because its ok to remove the entire tube if the baby is still alive. Maybe someone else (PSPX?) will have a better answer for that one. My aunt had an ectopic pregnancy and her baby had died already and they were going to blast (which would have been ok) but her tube was so damaged that the had to remove it after all.

[musturde]

hughey, i guess i remembered my teachers arguement with a small amount of details off. Your view's the same as mine lol.

[Noel's angel]

ok, so if the baby will die anyway, whether u save the mother or not, is that ok??? sorry, but im confused..........

[musturde]

The doctor himself will not abort the baby, he will try his best to go around it and if in that process he kills the baby, you're in okay terms. (from what I've heard)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Oct 8 2004, 08:51 PM'] 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 [/quote]
No you do whatever is necessary to try to save BOTH.

[Noel's angel]

ok, so i think im pretty clear about this now, if what people are saying is what the Church says

[Theoketos]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 8 2004, 02:22 PM'] 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. [/quote]
^What he said

And the Mother can choose not to abort the baby, morally and heroically.

There is an example in a modern day saint that did this: [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0090.html"]Saint Dr. Gianna Molla [/url]

[img]http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/saints/molla.JPG[/img]

[Noel's angel]

but it is not better that one life is saved rather than two being lost? But Gods Will be done

[Theoketos]

Read the Link

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0090.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ing/pa0090.html[/url]

[Noel's angel]

right, understood

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Oct 8 2004, 07:51 PM'] 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 [/quote]
NO. You cannot do whatever is necessary, if what is necessary would be a direct surgical abortion. If the child dies as a result of some other treatment, then yes, it is morally permissable. If the child itself is what is being treated as a disease, then no, it not morallly permissable, unless the child is already dead. You may never directly kill the child, even to save the mothers life. That is using an evil means to bring about a good end. This is never permissable.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Oct 8 2004, 10:10 PM'] I think if the baby is alive "blasting" would be inadmissable... I'm not sure, though, because its ok to remove the entire tube if the baby is still alive. Maybe someone else (PSPX?) will have a better answer for that one. My aunt had an ectopic pregnancy and her baby had died already and they were going to blast (which would have been ok) but her tube was so damaged that the had to remove it after all. [/quote]
If the tube is diseased apart from any problem the child itself is directly causing, then it could be removed. Can you clarify what you mean by "blasting" or what would make this necessary apart from an ectopic pregency?

[toledo_jesus]

here's how it works. It is never ever ever ever ever right to intentionally kill the baby, even to save the mother's life. However, an operation may be undertaken with the express purpose of saving the mother's life, which [i]may[/i] tragically result in the death of the child. In that sense it would cause what is medically termed an abortion, but what we morally distinguish from the sin of homicide.