Permissibility Of Abortion

[altersteve]

No, the Catholic position would be to fight to preserve the life of both. The unborn is not seen as possessing less of a dignity, a right to life, than than the mother, or the mother less than the unborn.

What if there was absolutely no way for the mother to live unless she aborted the baby?

[Ran]

CFR to you also. That means call for reference- you must give a reference or retract your statement as part of board rules. I want to get to the bottom of this question and find out what Catholic doctrine is instead of all this beat-around-the-bush nonsense.

"Apart from the question of who has primacy in the right to life, Catholic ethics excludes the direct and intentional killing of the fetus as a means to save the life of the mother."

Direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith includes "the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being" (no. 11) as an example of a doctrine of "divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable" (no. 5). It requires the "assent of theological faith" and carries the censure of heresy if obstinately doubted or denied (no. 5).

Direct abortion

John Paul II: "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. " (no. 62).

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo" (no. 45).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cf. John Paul II: "As for abortion procured in certain difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II applies: «It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being» (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 58)."

"...hysterectomy can be a licit procedure, but intact dilation and extraction is not. Both entail the death of fetus."

Licit therapies and fetal death

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child" (no. 47).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called 'therapeutic' abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951)."

Hysterectomy (re: consequence of permanent sterility -- not fetal death -- but illustrates the principle of double-effect)

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"Q. 1.When the uterus becomes so seriously injured (e.g., during a delivery or a Caesarian section) so as to render medically indicated even its total removal (hysterectomy) in order to counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother, is it licit to perform such a procedure notwithstanding the permanent sterility which will result for the woman?

"R. Affirmative...

...

"Explanation

"In the first case, the hysterectomy is licit because it has a directly therapeutic character, even though it may be foreseen that permanent sterility will result. In fact, it is the pathological condition of the uterus (e.g., a hemorrhage which cannot be stopped by other means), which makes its removal medically indicated. The removal of the organ has as its aim, therefore, the curtailing of a serious present danger to the woman independent of a possible future pregnancy."

Intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as "late-term" or "partial-birth" abortion)

American Medical Association, House of Delegates, definition (cf. H-5.982)

John Paul II: "Moreover, there are signs of an almost unimaginable insensitivity to the reality of what actually happens during an abortion, as evidenced in recent events surrounding so-called 'partial-birth' abortion. This is a cause for deep concern. A society with a diminished sense of the value of human life at its earliest stages has already opened the door to a culture of death. As Pastors, you must make every effort to ensure that there is no dulling of consciences regarding the seriousness of the crime of abortion, a crime which cannot be morally justified by any circumstance, purpose or law (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 62).

"So in saving the life of a pregnant woman with uterine fibroma..."

Uterine Fibroma(historical case of Gianna Beretta Molla, Saint [non-authoritative reference])

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.:"1. Considering the dangers, she could have chosen to have her uterus removed (hysterectomy) in order to remove the fibroid from her body. This would be a fairly low-risk approach for her situation. It would result, however, in the death of her 2 month old fetus, and preclude the possibility of future pregnancies. Based on the particulars of her case, this option would not have been morally problematic; Catholic moralists have analyzed cases of this sort under the Principle of Double Effect 1. Such an intervention is directed towards saving the life of the mother by removing the cancerous uterus (which has the undesired effect of ending the life of the unborn child). Morally, such a case would be properly considered under the aspect of a hysterectomy, not under the rubric of elective abortion.

2. A second option in St. Gianna's case would be to have the fibroid removed as well as terminating the pregnancy, thereby still retaining the possibility of future pregnancies. This option, by requiring direct abortion, would be morally contraindicated.

3. A third option would be to have the fibroid surgically removed and risk the continuation of her pregnancy, which is the option St. Gianna chose. Because she was a physician, Gianna understood that the risks were several: the surgery on the uterus might irritate it to the point that the pregnancy would be threatened and would spontaneously abort. The blood loss can be difficult to control in a pregnant uterus. Surgery on the uterus under these circumstances also presented the danger that during the remainder of the pregnancy, there might be a re-opening of the scarred wound from the surgery. A flare-up of this sort could be dangerous from the rapid bleeding that would ensue. "

[mfbukowski]

"Apart from the question of who has primacy in the right to life, Catholic ethics excludes the direct and intentional killing of the fetus as a means to save the life of the mother."

Direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith includes "the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being" (no. 11) as an example of a doctrine of "divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable" (no. 5). It requires the "assent of theological faith" and carries the censure of heresy if obstinately doubted or denied (no. 5).

Direct abortion

John Paul II: "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. " (no. 62).

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo" (no. 45).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, cf. John Paul II: "As for abortion procured in certain difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II applies: «It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being» (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 58)."

"...hysterectomy can be a licit procedure, but intact dilation and extraction is not. Both entail the death of fetus."

Licit therapies and fetal death

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child" (no. 47).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called 'therapeutic' abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951)."

Hysterectomy (re: consequence of permanent sterility -- not fetal death -- but illustrates the principle of double-effect)

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"Q. 1.When the uterus becomes so seriously injured (e.g., during a delivery or a Caesarian section) so as to render medically indicated even its total removal (hysterectomy) in order to counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother, is it licit to perform such a procedure notwithstanding the permanent sterility which will result for the woman?

"R. Affirmative...

...

"Explanation

"In the first case, the hysterectomy is licit because it has a directly therapeutic character, even though it may be foreseen that permanent sterility will result. In fact, it is the pathological condition of the uterus (e.g., a hemorrhage which cannot be stopped by other means), which makes its removal medically indicated. The removal of the organ has as its aim, therefore, the curtailing of a serious present danger to the woman independent of a possible future pregnancy."

Intact dilation and extraction (colloquially known as "late-term" or "partial-birth" abortion)

American Medical Association, House of Delegates, definition (cf. H-5.982)

John Paul II: "Moreover, there are signs of an almost unimaginable insensitivity to the reality of what actually happens during an abortion, as evidenced in recent events surrounding so-called 'partial-birth' abortion. This is a cause for deep concern. A society with a diminished sense of the value of human life at its earliest stages has already opened the door to a culture of death. As Pastors, you must make every effort to ensure that there is no dulling of consciences regarding the seriousness of the crime of abortion, a crime which cannot be morally justified by any circumstance, purpose or law (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 62).

"So in saving the life of a pregnant woman with uterine fibroma..."

Uterine Fibroma(historical case of Gianna Beretta Molla, Saint [non-authoritative reference])

Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.:"1. Considering the dangers, she could have chosen to have her uterus removed (hysterectomy) in order to remove the fibroid from her body. This would be a fairly low-risk approach for her situation. It would result, however, in the death of her 2 month old fetus, and preclude the possibility of future pregnancies. Based on the particulars of her case, this option would not have been morally problematic; Catholic moralists have analyzed cases of this sort under the Principle of Double Effect 1. Such an intervention is directed towards saving the life of the mother by removing the cancerous uterus (which has the undesired effect of ending the life of the unborn child). Morally, such a case would be properly considered under the aspect of a hysterectomy, not under the rubric of elective abortion.

2. A second option in St. Gianna's case would be to have the fibroid removed as well as terminating the pregnancy, thereby still retaining the possibility of future pregnancies. This option, by requiring direct abortion, would be morally contraindicated.

3. A third option would be to have the fibroid surgically removed and risk the continuation of her pregnancy, which is the option St. Gianna chose. Because she was a physician, Gianna understood that the risks were several: the surgery on the uterus might irritate it to the point that the pregnancy would be threatened and would spontaneously abort. The blood loss can be difficult to control in a pregnant uterus. Surgery on the uterus under these circumstances also presented the danger that during the remainder of the pregnancy, there might be a re-opening of the scarred wound from the surgery. A flare-up of this sort could be dangerous from the rapid bleeding that would ensue. "

Wow- I really appreciate your extensive response to the CFR. Thank you very much.

It seems to me however that this is the bottom line here:

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child" (no. 47).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called 'therapeutic' abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951)."

So it seems that the Catholics here have over-stated their case- and that indeed in the case where the life of a mother is threatened, the church would condone saving the mother's life over that of the fetus. THAT is a surprise.

Obviously in cases of rape or incest, abortion is not an option, as we suspected and that is not a surprise.

Interesting, and thanks for a very valuable clarification. I disagree with the rape and incest issue, but I think we are not as far apart as I thought we were on the pending death of the mother issue.

So much for the notion that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother.

[emeliza]

So it seems that the Catholics here have over-stated their case- and that indeed in the case where the life of a mother is threatened, the church would condone saving the mother's life over that of the fetus. THAT is a surprise.

Obviously in cases of rape or incest, abortion is not an option, as we suspected and that is not a surprise.

Interesting, and thanks for a very valuable clarification. I disagree with the rape and incest issue, but I think we are not as far apart as I thought we were on the pending death of the mother issue.

So much for the notion that the life of the fetus is as important as the life of the mother.

From what I am reading, they never condone abortion, however if there is a medical treatment that might harm or kill the unborn child, but the life of the mother is in jeopardy and cannot wait until the child is born, that should not be considered an abortion.

So the situation where the mom needs immediate surgery, which could cause the fetus to die, that would be allowable or if the mom has to take some type of medication or other treatment to live, but that treatment will affect the unborn, she can.

However I do not read that they would allow an abortion in those situations, more that they would allow the mother to care for herself and if the unborn dies...it is more the will of God.

[Vance]

And the pattern is ... ? (you did say you were going to try to be a bit more verbose to more easily facilitate discussion)

So, you don't see the pattern then.

[Vance]

Of course there is an answer if it came down to the 'nitty gritty' which would fall upon favoring the mother but rarely does it ever come to that especially in modern times. 99% of abortions are unnecessary. Our goal as Christians is to try to make that option as a truly rare case which is not even remotely coming close at this point in time.

That sounds more like LDS doctrine than Catholic doctrine, at least as I am understanding Catholic doctrine to be no abortions period.

[saemo]

The mother's life is more important. She is a mature adult who has others depending on her- if she leaves this life it would clearly be more tragic.

These choices are not easy but sometimes they cannot be ignored by the cop-out "fight for both". Of course you would fight for both. That doesn't answer anything. The question doesn't even arise until the choice between one or the other must be made.

It becomes a choice of choosing one tragedy over another, but it must be done.

If religion only helps us in the abstract it is irrelevant in the nitty gritty.

I understand how you can come to this conclusion. I'll only say, if/when you start measuring the value of human life by the abilities or maturity level of that life, you have opened a door to infanticide. As every argument you make can be given as a "reason" for killing a newborn as well as the unborn.

A human life that is still forming is existing exactly as God meant it to be. It is not our judgement to say it is a life with lesser value.

The choice to take an innocent life is not ours, is the Catholic view.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[Vance]

From what I am reading, they never condone abortion, however if there is a medical treatment that might harm or kill the unborn child, but the life of the mother is in jeopardy and cannot wait until the child is born, that should not be considered an abortion.

So the situation where the mom needs immediate surgery, which could cause the fetus to die, that would be allowable or if the mom has to take some type of medication or other treatment to live, but that treatment will affect the unborn, she can.

However I do not read that they would allow an abortion in those situations, more that they would allow the mother to care for herself and if the unborn dies...it is more the will of God.

So it is ok if the results are the same but the process is different. Sounds a bit like religion telling the field of medicine how to best do their job.

[mfbukowski]

The choice to take an innocent life is not ours, is the Catholic view.

The choice to take an innocent life is not ours, is the Mormon view.

[Vance]

I understand how you can come to this conclusion. I'll only say, if/when you start measuring the value of human life by the abilities or maturity level of that life, you have opened a door to infanticide. As every argument you make can be given as a "reason" for killing a newborn as well as the unborn.

The choice to take an innocent life is not ours, is the Catholic view.

In nature, the life of the adult is ALWAYS more valuable than the life of the juvenile. Did God get THAT wrong?

[saemo]

The choice to take an innocent life is not ours, is the Mormon view.

You seem to have a contradiction.

[mfbukowski]

From what I am reading, they never condone abortion, however if there is a medical treatment that might harm or kill the unborn child, but the life of the mother is in jeopardy and cannot wait until the child is born, that should not be considered an abortion.

So the situation where the mom needs immediate surgery, which could cause the fetus to die, that would be allowable or if the mom has to take some type of medication or other treatment to live, but that treatment will affect the unborn, she can.

However I do not read that they would allow an abortion in those situations, more that they would allow the mother to care for herself and if the unborn dies...it is more the will of God.

Sounds the same to me. The practical consequences are indistinguishable as would even be the thought processes for an LDS woman. But for us it would be up to the mother to decide - as directed and counseled by God himself through the spirit, not dictated by what she "can" or "cannot" do as determined by someone else.

[saemo]

In nature, the life of the adult is ALWAYS more valuable than the life of the juvenile. Did God get THAT wrong?

Really? This is your argument?

[mfbukowski]

You seem to have a contradiction.

I think I know what will be your response- but I'll bite: Where?

[blueadept]

That sounds more like LDS doctrine than Catholic doctrine, at least as I am understanding Catholic doctrine to be no abortions period.

This was better explained by Ran in post #102.

I was aware of this and knew there was some guidance if a decision needed to be made in regards to the mother,

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: "Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child" (no. 47).

So it's still a serious sin to have an abortion even under these conditions and I'm fine with this position of the RCC. I'm also fine with the RCC's position in regards to rape and incest in regards to abortions. I've met a few individuals who were products of rape and lived in loving adoptive homes. Their testimonies are powerful.

[saemo]

Sounds the same to me. The practical consequences are indistinguishable as would even be the thought processes for an LDS woman. But for us it would be up to the mother to decide - as directed and counseled by God himself through the spirit, not dictated by what she "can" or "cannot" do as determined by someone else.

We take, thou shalt not kill, seriously.

[mfbukowski]

In nature, the life of the adult is ALWAYS more valuable than the life of the juvenile. Did God get THAT wrong?

I would fall on a grenade for my kids without even thinking about it

[mfbukowski]

So it's still a serious sin to have an abortion even under these conditions and I'm fine with this position of the RCC.

It doesn't say that.

[saemo]

I think I know what will be your response- but I'll bite: Where?

No trick going on. You have stated emphatically, that you would kill your unborn.

[Vance]

Really? This is your argument?

Is that your counter argument?

[mfbukowski]

We take, thou shalt not kill, seriously.

So do we, but we think about what that means. If you take it that seriously you should be conscientious objectors.

[Vance]

I would fall on a grenade for my kids without even thinking about it

Yeah, but Bambi's mother wouldn't.

[saemo]

I would fall on a grenade for my kids without even thinking about it

Yet it is wrong for a mother to do the same for her unborn child? What about your other children, and your wife? You would leave them fatherless and without a husband. Shouldn't you let one child die so the others don't suffer you being gone?

This is the contradiction.

Edited September 25, 2012 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

No trick going on. You have stated emphatically, that you would kill your unborn.

LOL out of context as usual- in the case of a choice between the mother and the fetus I would do what the Catholic church would also permit

Quit twisting my words.

[mfbukowski]

Well we are obvious beyond reason here- I am gone