www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall When is abortion morally acceptable?

A.M.D.G.

I can think of only four instances in which abortion is morally acceptable:

(1) When there is a blighted ovum;

(2) When the fertilized egg is implanted in a fallopian tube;

(3) When the embryo is brain dead; and

(4) When it is necessary to save the life of the mother, such as when she has cervical cancer.

Medical professionals are presumably able to provide additional cases in which an abortion is morally acceptable. These are the only four I know anything about.

Just a few points to clarify...

Def of Blighted Ovum [babycenter.com]

This is not an abortion, since it is the removal of the body of a fetus that has already died.

As far as I know, this can only be handled morally by tubal ligation. Some have advocated the scraping of the tubal lining to remove the fetus, but this is a direct attack upon the life of the fetus. The ligation procedure is not a direct act taken against the fetus, but results in the death of the fetus as an acccidental - not intended - effect.

It depends on how one defines "brain dead". Are the basic bodily functions still working? Is the baby growing? Is the heart beating? To remove a fetus who has died from the womb is not an abortion. But to destroy a life in utero that is still functioning (to directly and intentionally take the life of an innocent human being) is an abortion and is thus not morally permissible.

In this particular case, I believe the cancerous cervix is removed resulting in the unintended consequence of the fetus' death.

Again, the operative ethical principle is that one cannot DIRECTLY and INTENTIONALLY take the life of an inncocent human being. You cannot morally procure an ANY abortion to "save the life of the mother". Such cases are extremely rare these days, especially in developed countries, but I assume they do happen from time to time.

God bless,

Gordo

It should I guess be pointd out there is a distinction between morally acceptable and free of sin. My undrstanding of just-war theology is the act is not rendered sinless per se, but is the lesser of two sins.

Whether the same applies with some cases of abortion I'm not sure, but the extension could be made.

N

Ned,

There is the classical distinction between the objective sinfulness of the act and the moral culpability of the individual actor.

I'm not sure how your point applies in this case. Could you clarify?

Gordo

JPP,

Mind if I clarify something?

Abortion, if it can be called that in the following scenarios, is not a sin in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or if removal of the uterus is required because of risk of death (such as from cancer).

It's not a sin-- in need, it's physically necessary-- in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (the baby growing in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), because if the baby is not removed, the falloian tube will burst, killing both mother and child. It's the "lesser of two evils" principle, which means that if faced with two unaviodable evils (the key word here being *unavoidable*), one must choose the lesser of the two. In this case, it's inevitable that the child will die, because one can't grow to the point of viability in a fallopian tube. But if the child isn't removed, then the mother will die as well.

The second case-- a pregnant woman with uterine cancer who must have an emergency hysterectomy. This is also not sinful because of the "double effect" principle. The intent is NOT the child's death, but the removal of a diseased uterus-- the hysterectomy would be performed even if the woman were not pregnant. The death of the child is an unfortunate but unintended consequence.

But we need to be careful, though. This "double effect" principle does NOT apply to having an abortion to preserve one's life or health. A woman who has a heart condition that makes it very dangerous for her to have a baby and has an abortion because of the risk to her life or health is not the same situation as the emergency hysterectomy, because in the case of the woman with the heart condition, this is not a "lesser of two evils" situation, and the intent IS the death of the child. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is always murder, even if committed for the purpose of saving oneself or others.

God bless,

Karen

The direct abortion of a living child is never morally acceptable.

As has already been pointed out ... Three of the four scenarios you gave are not cases of direct abortion so none of them fit the orginal question of "When is abortion morally acceptable?"

As for situation number 3.

If "brain dead" means the hypothalamus is not functioning properly and the baby's heart is not beating then the child is dead and the removal of the child from the uterus is not an abortion. Thus the medical procedure (even if it includes dilation and curetage) is morally acceptable.

If "brain dead" means that there is not sufficient cognative brain function ... First I don't know how you would even determine that state. But if that is the case but the baby is alive and growing then I fail to see how the direct action of killing the child could ever be morally acceptable.

Never!
An abortion in never morally allowed or acceptable. Let's clarify what your saying.
It is never allowed to directly attack and kill a fetus. One may treat cancer by the removal of a diseased uterus and the secondary effect is that the fetus dies. For instance by chemotherapy. The intent is not to kill the fetus but to treat the illness of the mother.
In the case of a fallopian tube preganacy one is allowed to remove the tube but never to directly destroy the fetus.
Hope this clarifies things.
Stephanos I

Never!

The Little Flower wouldn't like it! (Nor would God!)

I finally have the time and internet speed to post on this. St. Gianna Beretta Molla M.D. would say that abortion is NEVER acceptable!

[Linked Image]

Here's a link to a website in her honor:

http://www.saintgianna.org/

What a woman!

Contraception's never morally acceptable either. And I'm glad more people are realzing this every day.

Although abortions not allowed I don't think that the technology used to save children/fetuses who would otherwise die should be allowed either. By going through such lengths to extend childrens lives it is in a sense going against nature. The children either die anyway or end up being "the living dead". I'm not talking about children who have what's the word "retardation" or mental or severe physical problems. I mean premature children who are barely in liveable condition to begin with but through modern technology are allowed to be alive only by depending on this technology for the rest of their lives. I don't think hospitals should force parents to keep premature children alive at any expense. I think there should be limits. This is probably controversial territory. I hope the Church agrees with what I'm saying. It's my view at the moment. I should know my brother Alexander was born prematurely and was than kept alive in an incubator for a few days but ending up dieing anyway. My mother certainly had her expectations built up by this, I think it made it more painful for her than if he'd not survived the caesarian. So it's not a matter of killing a child, but it's a matter of not forcing some artificial form of life on him either. Letting Nature take it's course, without "playing God".

I hope it is you who agree with the Church and not the otherway around. The Church does not require extra-ordinary means to keep anyone alive.

ICXC
NIKA

You're absolutely right, Stephanos!

I just finished my semester of Catholic moral theology, and your post succintly states what the Church teaches in those cases.

It is called in moral theology the Principle of Double Effect.

God bless you,
griego

Christ is Risen!

This is not always what happens. A girl in my high school class (which graduates Thursday) was born two months early, and was expected to be handicapped et al as you describe (part of the "living dead" depending on "technology").

If I'm not mistaken, she will graduate Thursday number three in my class (she was also a member of the Marching Band and soccer team, in addition to being involved in our local community).

Forcing an "artificial form of life" upon her did not just keep her alive for a few more days, but gave our community a wonderful young lady who has made a great impact in the lives of many people.

--Mark Therrien

"I hope it is you who agree with the Church and not the otherway around. The Church does not require extra-ordinary means to keep anyone alive."

I trust the Church, but with all this technology I dont always know if their is any catechetical teachings about every subject yet available. All I have is my conscience until I hear what the church teaches I hope that my head is thinking the same. 95% of the time (possibly 99) our conclusions have been nearly identical. I accept the Churches authority and eternal wisdom, but uh, I still figure theres something out there that I'll encouter which I dont agree with but have to accept eventually. So I was keeping my fingers crossed by not claiming that what I believed was the same as the churches..Perhaps I worry unnecessarily. Im losing my train of thought now..I think what I was saying was my way of keeping humble.

Christos Anesti!