Abortion To Save The Live Of The Mother

[Kevin]

Whenever I read about the response of the church to cases like that of Margret McBride I feel very worried about the legitimacy of the Church itself. The Church's position honestly seems to be that, if there was a case in which there was 0% for the child to live, and that unless an abortion, and not an indirect abortion but a straight up abortion was performed, there was a 100% chance the mother would die, the only moral choice for the mother to take would be to simply die.

 

I am aware of arguments that there are no actual scenarios like this, that it is never an issue of 100% chance a mother will die, but I am confident that a 0% chance for the survival of the fetus can be established. So, if there is a 0% chance of fetal survival, and performing an indirect abortion will create, say, a 50% chance that the mother will die, whereas a direct abortion will create a 0% chance the mother will die, then how does make any sense for the woman to have to imperil her life so for what is essentially a matter of semantics. Or, if 50% is too little, what if it was 90%?

 

This objection, I think, is just one of reason. If the Church believes people to be self-excommunicated because of this, I have trouble understanding how the Church can still be thought of as legitimate if it put a semantics above life - if the child is as sure to die  if a so-called "indirect abortion" is performed as they would be if a real abortion is performed, then the indirect abortion is no different from an abortion, and those who attempt it and thereby bring the life of the fetus to a premature must also be held culpable.

 

But what about a case were there is a small chance for the fetus to live, but the mother will almost certainly die, if a birth is attempted. Doesn't requiring the mother to die go against 2264 "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow". I have heard it said that this is treating an unborn child like a disease, or like a killer, and that this cannot be legitimately called self-defense since the child is innocent. But this seems extremely hollow to me: if, for example, a person with a brain tumor like the U. of Texas shooter Charles Whitman who might be called an innocent with no control over the fact the he is imperiling the lives of others approaches me with a gun, then am I obligated to let the lethal blow fall on me, contrary to 2264. At the very least, if this is the case, 2264 must be changed to reflect the fact that self-defense is only legitimate against those who are responsible for their actions. I am not being sarcastic here - I simply want the law to be consistent.

[CatherineM]

There are a lot of people walking around today who were given 0% chance of living. I'm one. The doctors told my mom I was dead in her womb, and she'd die without an abortion. She felt me move when she was being wheeled in to the OR. I've always had good timing.

Humans are great at rationalizing stuff so that we can get what we want. If you don't want a child bad enough, you can come up with a million excuses. How about this one? If I have to carry this child to term, I will kill myself. So that means the baby is legitimately endangering the health of the mother.

Another great one is the child is the product of rape. Lots of people want to make that an exception. Next thing you know, and women will convince themselves they were raped because he refused to wear a condom or because he got me to have sex with the promise we'd marry, or because she'd had too much to drink.

What doctors don't want to admit, even to themselves, is that there are no 100% or 0% in medicine. My mom was told having children would kill her. She had half a dozen that came to term. I was told I'd die if I got pregnant. I survived 5 miscarriages and am quite alive. We can discuss hypotheticals until the cows come home, but the bottom line is that where there is life, there is hope.

What is so hard to accept about conception to natural death? Anything else is playing God and none of us, even doctors, have the skills for that job.

[Theoketos]

Catherine gives an excellent answer. She clearly is an example of both the medical establishments presumption toward abortion as an undue pancea and the grace of God. 

 

It is important to note that in most cases of ectopic pregnancies, all orthodox (Roman Catholic) theologians and philosophers I know, allow for the removal of the fallopian tube. Look up the principle of double effect. Ectopic pregnancies occur when the embryo/fetus develop in the fallopian tube and with out the removal of the embryo/fetus the death of the mother would certainly occur.