Just an FYI, this is a classic case where the Catholic Church would NOT object to an abortion. I asked a Catholic Priest / Medical Ethesist (sic?) 'under what circumstances would the church permit an abortion'. This was the exact scenerio he gave, because you are saving the life of the mother, and removing the baby would save her life.
The church requires you to be moral, not a saint. What this woman did was saintly.
That was his response.
Abortion
142. Ethical delegitimization applies to all forms of direct abortion, since it is an intrinsically blameworthy act. The use of substances or means which impede the implantation of the fertilized embryo or which cause its premature detachment is also an act of abortion. A doctor who would knowingly prescribe or apply such substances or means would cooperate in the abortion.
If the abortion follows as a foreseen but not intended or willed but merely tolerated consequence of a therapeutic act essential for the mother's health, this is morally legitimate. The abortion in this case is the indirect result of an act which is not in itself abortive.[273]
273. CF Pius XII To "Face of the Family" and the "Associations of Large Families, Nov. 27, 1951, in AAS 43 (1951) p. 859.
It's like if a building was on fire with several people in it, and one (say, very heavy) person was unconscious and blocking a door, you could "move" that person to save the others, even if you could only drag him to another part of the burning room. You didn't kill him. Whether he was in location "A" or location "B", he was a goner.
A judgment call. Tragic situation. Triage.
There was no guarantee that having an abortion would save this woman's life.
Indeed, unlike an ectopic pregnancy, it was not the baby but the cancer that was a threat to the mother's life. The abortion here would only be a side effect to the mother's chemotherapy which may or may not have saved her life. Further, there was no indication that the child had cancer. So, again unlike an ectopic pregnancy in which there is essentially no chance that the child will survive but there is a great chance that the mother could die, here the probabilities were completely reversed. The mother's survival was hardly a fait accompli, whereas the baby survived, just as the mother expected.
I doubt that the Catholic Church sanctions abortion in just such a case. Am I wrong about that? If so, I'd appreciate correction.
If this is the actual info that the priest gave you, he is dead wrong. Abortion is never permitted.
If the child died as a result of treatment of the mother (say with radiation treatments), that's one thing. But to directly terminate a pregnancy, i.e., kill a unborn baby, is always murder. There is no such thing as a "theraputic" abortion.
I read a discussion of this recently, and I'm sorry, but I can't recall the link. It may have been on Free Republic.
Ectopic pregnancy (conception and attachment within the falopian tube) is another issue. The removal of the fallopian tube does not morally constitute an abortion, although the pregnancy is ended.
Anyone who calls himself an "ethicist" is not to be trusted with a dollar, and definitely not with anyone's daughter.
Back on topic, it is Judaism that says you must sacrifice the child if a choice is forced between the life of the child and the life of the mother. Makes sense for a people trying to survive - the mother could bear more children but the child would be many years from doing so.
Thank you for your response.