I’m a NICU nurse; yes, there are cases where a mother develops very high blood pressure, and the baby has to be taken early, which sometimes results in his demise.
If a condition happens really early, yes, the baby has to be taken.
If you think this is wrong, so be it; tell it to her husband and her other children.
This is a clear case of "double effect" and has at no time, never, been considered murder, neither in criminal law nor in Church law.
The intention is to save them both patients if possible. If the labor is induced early (which happened to me as a result of pregnancy-induced hypertension) the doctor is still trying to save both mother and baby.
Sometimes they can postpone the pitocin drip or the Cesarean until the baby's lungs and other organ systems are developed enough to for the baby to survive: in borderline cases, they'll have the Neonatal ICU all ready and work like mad to protect both patients' halthand well-being.
In any case, killing the baby is not the intent --- the intent is to do what is possible for each and every patient.
Isn't that so?
And that's why a preterm delivery that sadly ends up with the baby's demise, is never considred murder. As in "issue," that's a non-starter, a red herring.
“..and the baby has to be taken early, which sometimes results in his demise.”
That’s not an abortion, and health care workers will do all they can to save the baby in that case.
As Mrs. Don-o said, that is “double effect.” My husband taught that when he was an adjunct philosophy instructor.
Another example of “double effect” would be if a mother receives treatment for her cancer which causes her baby to die. The cancer treatment wasn’t to cause an abortion, but to save the mother’s life.
Some mothers do forgo treatments so that their baby will live. A waitess in my area had cancer, and didn’t receive chemo, and she died, but her baby lived. A brave woman who loved her preborn baby more than her own life.