Abortion in regards to the *life* of the mother (not health)

[crhoades]

Tough thing to chew on:

Is abortion allowable when the *life* of the mother is in danger?

In Scripture when is it right to ever kill someone? Self defense, just war, capital punishment.

In relation to a mother's life and the baby's, is it right to save the mother's life and take the baby's? Is the baby attacking the mother? Declaring war against her? Has the baby committed any crime worthy of capital punishment? Did not Jesus say that love was laying your life down for a friend?

I wrestle with this one. I absolutely would not allow for abortion for any reason and this is the only one that troubles me. I'll admit is more emotional than anything. I am not a woman and as a husband who loves his wife deeply, I can't begin to understand the psychological torture if put in the place to make a call like this. I'm not sure of statistics of how many actually occur. Would this be God's providence (of course it would)?

Any thoughts? May I make a suggestion to tread tenderly and not overly polemical in a sensitive area such as this?

 

[LadyFlynt]

No...God is the giver and taker of life. If anything, the mother should be willing to give her life for the life of her child and a husband for the lives of his family. There is NO evidence that one should sacrifice a child to save their own lives. In fact, to do so is to their own condemnation.

 

[Mrs.SolaFide]

There is no greater love the mother can show than doing her best to PRESERVE her child's life by giving up her own.

 

[bradofshaw]

I don't know much about this, but how often is it a case of either or? In other words, is the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child, or between the life of the mother or the death of both child and mother?

I suppose there are certain health conditions like diabetes that would threaten a mothers life without the child being in danger necessarily. Is it usually that the mother will not be able to survive through delivery, whereas emergency measures could still save the child?

 

[LadyFlynt]

MANY women have or develope diabetes during pregnancy. It IS a controllable disease...just one that must be closely monitored and diet must be watched (pregnant or not!). There is NO reason for an abortion because of diabetes or other such diseases. I have a couple of friends that have active cancer and just delivered their healthy children, despite the risks.

I can NOT see aborting a child because the mother MIGHT die. Death is never certain in any of these cases. However, abortion IS certain death of the child.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

What about this case:

A tubal pregnancy?

The case: the child does not go into the womb (why? Doctors have no idea). Instead, it gets "stuck" and grows inside the very small Fallopian tube abnormally. It is a small network of "webby" material that is growing onto the sides of the tube itself, but the Fallopian tube is not built to house the child. So, the consequence is that as the child grows (and this usually happens in the second month - around 6 weeks) it tears itself apart and kills itself, bursting the Fallopian tube. There is no surgery or aid that can be performed. Tubal pregnancies are utterly fatal to those conceptions within 2 months. Here's the clincher, the mother will die too if not treated. In other words, if the child grows, and bursts the Fallopian tube, which it will do and does in every instance and there is no way around it, the mother's Fallopian tube bursts, and she bleeds to death internally in about an hour or so. If the doctors don't find the tubal pregnancy both the child and mother die.

If it is found in time, an operation can be done to remove that part of the tube, or to fix the tube if it is already bursting and bleeding. This takes the child out (an abortion of sorts?) and saves the mother's life. If its not done, the child tears apart is murders itself in every case, and the mother dies in every case from internal bleeding.

 

[satz]

I have heard someone say that given our current state of technology there are practically no cases where it is genuinely a matter of chosing if the mother or the child is to live.

If there ever were to be a such a case, in all honestly i do not think the issue is quite so simple. I do find the arguments that have been posted here compelling, but can we be sure they are the 100% biblical response in such a situation? To simply say God choses who lives and who dies is, i think, not a very satisfactory answer. Note also that the dilemma facing the husband in such a situation is quite different from that facing the mother.

I cannot imagine what i would do in such a situation, but at the moment, if i knew a couple that was genuinely put in such a situation i would not condemn them no matter what they chose. They will be accountable to God in their own consciences but i am not at all convinced that others have any business passing judgment in such a case. Off course if i there are any verses to prove me wrong i would want to see them.

Off course i am talking about a situation where a choice must genuinely be made, not one where there is only a possibility of danger to the mother.

This is a tough topic. I would be interested in hearing what others have to say.

 

[satz]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
What about this case:

A tubal pregnancy?

The case: the child does not go into the womb (why? Doctors have no idea). Instead, it gets "stuck" and grows inside the very small Fallopian tube abnormally. It is a small network of "webby" material that is growing onto the sides of the tube itself, but the Fallopian tube is not built to house the child. So, the consequence is that as the child grows (and this usually happens in the second month - around 6 weeks) it tears itself apart and kills itself, bursting the Fallopian tube. There is no surgery or aid that can be performed. Tubal pregnancies are utterly fatal to those conceptions within 2 months. Here's the clincher, the mother will die too if not treated. In other words, if the child grows, and bursts the Fallopian tube, which it will do and does in every instance and there is no way around it, the mother's Fallopian tube bursts, and she bleeds to death internally in about an hour or so. If the doctors don't find the tubal pregnancy both the child and mother die.

If it is found in time, an operation can be done to remove that part of the tube, or to fix the tube if it is already bursting and bleeding. This takes the child out (an abortion of sorts?) and saves the mother's life. If its not done, the child tears apart is murders itself in every case, and the mother dies in every case from internal bleeding.

From what little i have heard, as well as what Dr McMahon has posted, in the case of a tubal pregnacy it is impossible to save the child no matter what is done. If that is true, i think it might not only be allowable but even a duty to have an operation.

 

[crhoades]

Good article from Stand To Reason
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/mother_s_life.pdf?docID=143

General Information:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm

http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/abortion6

Still researching this issue...

This is where we get to apply Norms to Situations using wisdom.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Bahnsen has a lecture on the topic. He said that self defense could not be claimed because there was no intent to cause harm. For example (mine hypothetical), Lets say my neighbor is held hostage and threatened with death if I leave my apartment and go to the local grocery store to buy chips. If the neighbor or a friend of the neighbor kills me in order to prevent me from going to the store, that cannot be classified as self defense.

If someone was serious in claiming self defense against the unborn then they would have to be willing to bring charges against the unborn after they are born, if their mother was to have died. "John Smith aged 11 is charged with murder of their mother when they were yet unborn"

Concerning the tubal pregnancy. I do not see how in the world that it could be classified as an abortion. (Bahnsen spoke on this but I do not remember the exact analysis besides saying that it was not an abortion)

Concerning Analysing this type of situation: I think if we consider give the unborn the full consideration of being fully human and fully worthy of protection, then I think we solve most (if not all situation). In that case a "triage" viewpoint could be envoked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
If they are both going to die if nothing is done, then we will give assistance to the one who has the best shot. Sometimes that could be the mother, sometimes it could be the unborn. (This is my own homebrew and not Bahnsen's so any tomatoes can be directed at me)

CT

 

[RamistThomist]

Well said, Hermonta!
If we are going to preserve life at all costs (major premise--this isn't a strict syllogism, though):
And do nothing, given that both will die, we have failed to preserve life.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Matt, you did hit on the only case that there is no other conclusion. Sad, but true. I honestly don't know if I could consider it active abortion either...

 

[ServantOfKing]

Well, I do certainly hate to rehash a post that has been dead since March... With that said, this topic came up last night in a discussion I was having with fellow reformed Christians.
I strongly believe if that after every effort to save the child, it is deemed absolutely impossible, then the life of the mother should be of utmost priority even if the baby's life must end prematurely. The only instance of this actually being possible that I know of is a tubal ectopic pregnancy.
My friend believed that to kill the child would be wrong even if it was about to die and take the mother's life with it, so he would prefer to see both the woman and the child die and not take intervention at all.
He rejects any kind of philosophical arguments like "double effect."

Where in scripture can I go to defend my position that life should be preserved in this situation?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Theoretical]

Severe uterine cancer is the only other one I have heard of that falls into the "cannot save the child" category into which Ectopic pregnancy falls.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
What about this case:

A tubal pregnancy?

The case: the child does not go into the womb (why? Doctors have no idea). Instead, it gets "stuck" and grows inside the very small Fallopian tube abnormally. It is a small network of "webby" material that is growing onto the sides of the tube itself, but the Fallopian tube is not built to house the child. So, the consequence is that as the child grows (and this usually happens in the second month - around 6 weeks) it tears itself apart and kills itself, bursting the Fallopian tube. There is no surgery or aid that can be performed. Tubal pregnancies are utterly fatal to those conceptions within 2 months. Here's the clincher, the mother will die too if not treated. In other words, if the child grows, and bursts the Fallopian tube, which it will do and does in every instance and there is no way around it, the mother's Fallopian tube bursts, and she bleeds to death internally in about an hour or so. If the doctors don't find the tubal pregnancy both the child and mother die.

If it is found in time, an operation can be done to remove that part of the tube, or to fix the tube if it is already bursting and bleeding. This takes the child out (an abortion of sorts?) and saves the mother's life. If its not done, the child tears apart is murders itself in every case, and the mother dies in every case from internal bleeding.

This is often referred to as an ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic simply means "out of place." In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus, and fails to work itself down from the fallopian tubes because of a blockage or inflammation typically. Many times, such inflammation is the result of a venereal disease, which is another compelling reason to avoid promiscuity.

Usually the method in our day and age to remove an ectopic stillborn is laparoscopy. It involves a lighted-camera inserted through abdomen. There are two ways in which surgeons remove myopic stillborns: (1) They make a small, lengthwise cut in the fallopian tube; (2) or a fallopian tube segment containing the myopic fetus is removed and the adjcacent fallopian tube is reconnected. Sometimes understandably if the first method is botched, then the second is the planned failsafe. With any such surgery, their is the risk of bleeding and infection.

My mother is a Registered Nurse. She worked in obstretics and gynecology and delivering babies for many years at the hospital. She refused to perform abortions or work with medical doctors that did so. However, she informed me that following a miscarriage that the surgery/procedure to remove a stillborn baby is somewhat like an abortion (though this is not the case with laproscopies utilized to remove a stillborn ectopic fetus which is very different.) Regretably, my own mother had to undergo the removal of a stillborn baby when she suffered a miscarriage in 1986, and I lost what would have been my third brother. Many any surgeon who remove stillborn babies consider the practices of abortionists who mangle fetuses into multiple pieces as problematic and unhealthy medicine, because of the risk of leaving tissue which may cause a life-threating infection. Their purpose is to keep the dead fetus intact and remove it. Abortion by its very nature, is an unhealthy procedure that causes an assortment of ailments and health problems to the mother.

Following the death of the child; the removal of the fetus is NOT the same as abortion, because the intention is not to terminate the pregnancy as the pregnancy has already ended, but rather the purpose is to remove the dead fetus from the womb, so as to avoid an infection which will in time almost always result in a deadly infection. It is natural sometimes, that the mother might even try to pass the stillborn fetus out of her body as her body reacts to the infection, and it is possible but almost nigh on impossible with a myopic stillborn. However, it is best that it be removed, especially as soon as it is confirmed that the baby is stillborn.

Though, it may raise ethical issues if the child is preemptively terminated in anticipation of it dying because the pregnancy is ectopic. Many doctors consider any myopic pregnancy a foregone conclusion that it will terminate.