Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Somehow, the false idea that the life of the baby should be saved at all costs (even if it means the death of the mother) has been perpetuated.

Not the idea that the baby should be saved at all costs; the idea that intentionally shortening the life of a person - which has been deemed to include a fetus - is murder except in certain extenuating circumstances, none of which apply in this case (e.g. killing in a just war).

It doesn't matter that an abortion in this case would only shorten the fetus' life by only a few hours or days; by Catholic doctrine, an abortion to save the life of the mother would have been the moral equivalent of killing an adult with a terminal illness to harvest his organs, and is unacceptable.

 

[Storm]

My wife has had a miscarriage and D&C.......I just wasn't used to hearing about cases like this.

Ok, now I'm confused as to why this is perceived to be an issue for Pro-Lifers? Mind clarifying? Miscarriages or situations that put the mother at risk have never been an issue or contradiction for us. The idea is always to save a life. If the fetus is unable to be saved, then the choice seems obvious (safety of the mother). If the fetus and mother are healthy, then that choice is left to the family. This is what most pro-lifers I know support. So what's the issue here?

Because the movement is heading to the lunatic fringe that results in cases like this. I forget which Republican legislator said the mother's life is never at risk with modern medicine, but it was said. And while I don't know whether it was the hospital staff or the Irish legislature that deserves the blame in this particular case, someone in a position of power clearly chose the dying fetus over the possibility of the mother's survival.

 

[Drolefille]

Not the idea that the baby should be saved at all costs; the idea that intentionally shortening the life of a person - which has been deemed to include a fetus - is murder except in certain extenuating circumstances, none of which apply in this case (e.g. killing in a just war).

It doesn't matter that an abortion in this case would only shorten the fetus' life by only a few hours or days; by Catholic doctrine, an abortion to save the life of the mother would have been the moral equivalent of killing an adult with a terminal illness to harvest his organs, and is unacceptable.

Correct. Under Catholic doctrine, an ectopic pregnancy for example cannot be resolved with a medical abortion as it would be murder. The acceptable resolution is removinga section of fallopian tube thereby only incidentally killing the fetus. Whoops. So quiddity may not agree with doctrin in this case, but that is the procedure at catholic hospitals.

Terminating the fetus prior to the loss of a heartbeat would similarly be considered murder.

As for why this is a pro-life issue? Because those laws that anti-abortion politicians keep proposing lead to this.

 

[Magic Man]

Correct. Under Catholic doctrine, an ectopic pregnancy for example cannot be resolved with a medical abortion as it would be murder.

This brings up an interesting realization. I'm assuming it's OK according to the church to defend yourself against an attacker, even if it means using lethal force when necessary. So, why should that same view not be extended to abortions in cases like this?

 

[Quiddity]

I'll be back to respond later. Looks like I have something to learn here about my own faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This brings up an interesting realization. I'm assuming it's OK according to the church to defend yourself against an attacker, even if it means using lethal force when necessary. So, why should that same view not be extended to abortions in cases like this?

The fetus wasn't attacking the woman; the infection was. The fetus didn't commit any intentional act to bring about the situation.

 

[sandandfoam]

And while I don't know whether it was the hospital staff or the Irish legislature that deserves the blame in this particular case, someone in a position of power clearly chose the dying fetus over the possibility of the mother's survival.

We'll have to see what comes out - but I imagine the blame lies with the legislature. Doctors practicing in Ireland could easily find themselves in court on criminal charges in this type of situation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You may be right, but do you know for a fact that that is what caused the infection, or are you just repeating other peoples speculations?

I am not a doctor and have no medical training to speak of, nor was I at the hospital at the time so I don't think I have the knowledge to say what caused the infection that killed the woman.

I do see your point, and I have no medical training either, I was just speculating. You're right, we won't know for sure what happened until the investigation is complete and all the facts are in.

 

[Magic Man]

The fetus wasn't attacking the woman; the infection was. The fetus didn't commit any intentional act to bring about the situation.

Right, but it's still self-defense with the only option being killing another human (since they see the fetus as a human).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, but it's still self-defense with the only option being killing another human (since they see the fetus as a human).

It's still deliberately killing an innocent, in their view, and therefore not allowed.

Catholic morality tends to be more prescriptive than utilitarian. Certain acts are considered always wrong regardless of the outcome.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Miscarriages or situations that put the mother at risk have never been an issue or contradiction for us. The idea is always to save a life. If the fetus is unable to be saved, then the choice seems obvious (safety of the mother). If the fetus and mother are healthy, then that choice is left to the family. This is what most pro-lifers I know support. So what's the issue here?

[emphasis added] How is that different from the pro-choice position? Roe v. Wade says states can pass laws regulating abortion after the first trimester, as long as a family's choice is protected when there is a risk to the health of the mother. If you don't disagree with that, you don't disagree with pro-choice.

This is what happened at my Catholic high school. All the students were strongly against abortion and, therefore, we thought we were pro-life. Then in political science class we learned what Roe v. Wade actually says. Then some of us realized we didn't really disagree with it, once we understood it.

 

[McBell]

It´s a human being who has not reached puberty. That´s the definition of child.

child 
noun,plural chil·dren.
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3. a baby or infant.
4. a human fetus.
5. a childish person: He's such a child about money.

Source
​

 

[Magic Man]

It's still deliberately killing an innocent, in their view, and therefore not allowed.

Right, but wouldn't they agree that killing an innocent adult was justified if it was in self-defense?

Catholic morality tends to be more prescriptive than utilitarian. Certain acts are considered always wrong regardless of the outcome.

I know. I'm just saying in light of this particular view of it, it seems inconsistent.

 

[McBell]

Right, but wouldn't they agree that killing an innocent adult was justified if it was in self-defense?

Um...
Not to be nit picky, but if it is "self defense" how is an "innocent" getting killed?

 

[Magic Man]

Um...
Not to be nit picky, but if it is "self defense" how is an "innocent" getting killed?

Let's say the person falls from a balcony or falls asleep at the wheel. Let's go way off and say someone is holding your attacker's spouse hostage and forcing them to attack you. I mean, they're all hypotheticals, but I would think that in any case, you'd be justified by anyone's standards, if you defended yourself by killing them (if necessary).

 

[Quiddity]

Not the idea that the baby should be saved at all costs; the idea that intentionally shortening the life of a person - which has been deemed to include a fetus - is murder except in certain extenuating circumstances, none of which apply in this case (e.g. killing in a just war).

It doesn't matter that an abortion in this case would only shorten the fetus' life by only a few hours or days; by Catholic doctrine, an abortion to save the life of the mother would have been the moral equivalent of killing an adult with a terminal illness to harvest his organs, and is unacceptable.

Because the movement is heading to the lunatic fringe that results in cases like this. I forget which Republican legislator said the mother's life is never at risk with modern medicine, but it was said. And while I don't know whether it was the hospital staff or the Irish legislature that deserves the blame in this particular case, someone in a position of power clearly chose the dying fetus over the possibility of the mother's survival.

Correct. Under Catholic doctrine, an ectopic pregnancy for example cannot be resolved with a medical abortion as it would be murder. The acceptable resolution is removinga section of fallopian tube thereby only incidentally killing the fetus. Whoops. So quiddity may not agree with doctrin in this case, but that is the procedure at catholic hospitals.

Terminating the fetus prior to the loss of a heartbeat would similarly be considered murder.
As for why this is a pro-life issue? Because those laws that anti-abortion politicians keep proposing lead to this.

First off, this is indeed tragic and sad and it would upset me greatly if my words were interpreted in any way that would deem the lost lives without dignity and respect. The idea is always to preserve life and I hope that can be seen.

1. The intention of my response is only to speak to it's relevance to catholic teaching. It would be irresponsible [I think] of me to defend the actions of the doctors as is currently reported (even though I can't stand the lying anti-life IrishTimes....yuck). If malpractice is at play, I will lose no sleep over the law stepping in (although this is more of medical negligence and have no idea how that plays out).

2. I find it disgusting that pro-choicers used this event as a means to propagate their vehement hatred of catholic teaching and to campaign for abortion.

3. Catholic Teaching says the following about such situations:
"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."
USCCB - (Bishops) - Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition

4. As to what is normal Irish practice in situations like this?.......from chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which represents 90%-95% of Ireland's obstetricians and gynaecologists, explained such situations to the All Party Oireachtas Committee's Fifth Report on Abortion as follows:

'In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both the mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.'

http://www.constitution.ie/reports/5th-Report-Abortion.pdf

So.....assuming the reporting is correct.....it seems to me like the doctor's were indeed negligent per normal Irish medical practice. I'm not even sure if the law was broken here. We shall see.

Chairman Bonnar further elaborates on such situations as follows:

'We have never regarded these interventions as abortion. It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to protect the life of the mother. So when we interfere in the best interests of protecting a mother, and not allowing her to succumb, and we are faced with a foetus that dies, we don’t regard that as something that we have, as it were, achieved by an abortion.
Abortion in the professional view to my mind is something entirely different. It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be.'

Miscarriage comes in several forms and it does categorize them as abortions, but this is never what most laymen people imagine when discussing this issue. But yet, it's blasted all over the net as an abortion (so unbias of them I might add).

Mr Spinkles seems to be the only one that was kind enough to phrase his objection or disagreement in a form of a question. It is usually common courtesy to refrain from posting the teachings of another religion without any room to be corrected or not even a link to support your understanding.

9-10ths_Penguin, contrary to your understanding, not all abortions are equal and certainly not to an adult person (comparing matters of mercy killings and matters of abortion where the life of the mother is at risk is a mistake). They just don't carry the same moral weight. However, it is always wrong in our view to end the life of the innocent assuming one considers the above. Also see:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/catholic-dir/70265-do-embryos-have-souls.html

Drolefille, notice I never once said that direct termination of the fetus was ok; Hope you caught that.

[emphasis added] How is that different from the pro-choice position? Roe v. Wade says states can pass laws regulating abortion after the first trimester, as long as a family's choice is protected when there is a risk to the health of the mother. If you don't disagree with that, you don't disagree with pro-choice.

This is what happened at my Catholic high school. All the students were strongly against abortion and, therefore, we thought we were pro-life. Then in political science class we learned what Roe v. Wade actually says. Then some of us realized we didn't really disagree with it, once we understood it.

Roe v. Wade doesn't just protect the choice of the family in health risk situations but also allows the women to terminate the pregnancy without any health risks at all. In fact, she doesn't even have to have a good reason at all. Am I wrong here?

 

[Quiddity]

She could have been saved under the current law and medical practice. Whether the doctors followed it is another story.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar should not be exploited to sweep away Irish abortion law, under which she could legally have been saved | CatholicHerald.co.uk

 

[Drolefille]

Drolefille, notice I never once said that direct termination of the fetus was ok; Hope you caught that.

Which is what this would have entailed, it would have been direct termination.

Roe v. Wade doesn't just protect the choice of the family in health risk situations but also allows the women to terminate the pregnancy without any health risks at all. In fact, she doesn't even have to have a good reason at all. Am I wrong here?

Not wanting another being using your body without your consent is a really good reason, IMO. But Roe Vs. Wade guarantees the right to control over one's body.

Edit: Also I have no problems stating Catholic doctrine without phrasing it in the form of a question as I was raised Catholic, have 20 years of Catholic education and have educated myself past it. The doctrine with ectopic pregnancy falls into the Doctrine of Double effect. Wiki explains it nicely here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion#Ectopic_pregnancy

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Roe v. Wade doesn't just protect the choice of the family in health risk situations but also allows the women to terminate the pregnancy without any health risks at all. In fact, she doesn't even have to have a good reason at all. Am I wrong here?

Yes I believe you are wrong here. Roe v. Wade protects the choice to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason, only in the first trimester, when the embryo/fetus is not viable outside the womb and an abortion is safer than childbirth. After the first trimester, Roe v. Wade only protects choice in health risk situations. Otherwise states are free to pass laws regulating abortion as they see fit.

 

[Storm]

She could have been saved under the current law and medical practice. Whether the doctors followed it is another story.

The tragic death of Savita Halappanavar should not be exploited to sweep away Irish abortion law, under which she could legally have been saved | CatholicHerald.co.uk

I'm sorry, but the raging bias in the headline alone makes me loathe to trust that article.