Twins pregnancy and abortion

[an7222]

Suppose a woman finds out to be pregnant of twins. Is it right to let her choose to have just one baby and abort the olher?

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

Her body, her choice. Not a choice I would make, but none of my business anyway.

 

[m9lc]

Yes, as long as it is first trimester.

 

[Nithavela]

Is it even possible to abort one twin and to keep the other?

Assuming that it is, I don't see a difference between aborting 1 baby and 1 baby out of two, the result is the same, one dead fetus.

 

[MarcusHill]

It would be very unusual for this to happen unless there was a complication whereby one twin had to be aborted or both would die. I suspect most women who elected to continue with the pregnancy at all but could only (for whatever reason) support one child would simply put the other up for adoption.

 

[Athene]

If there's a medical reason to do so then yes she should have the right but I think it would be pretty sick to abort a twin because you only wanted one child.

 

[jayem]

AFAIK, the procedure is done when there are signs of fetal abnormalities in one twin. Even in identical twins, there are cases where only one is affected. Usually Down Syndrome, or neural tube defects, according to the article.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_9_36/ai_75505226


But for medical provider to agree to a selective termination of a healthy twin pregnancy would have to be a very unusual circumstance. Maybe in a woman who had a strong history of past miscarriages with twins. I can't imagine any other reason.

 

[Monica02]

Suppose a woman finds out to be pregnant of twins. Is it right to let her choose to have just one baby and abort the olher?

No, it is a sin to directly abort an unborn child.

 

[Atheuz]

It's her body and thus it's her conscious choice to do it.

 

[Gwendar Evergreen]

Her body, her choice.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with her choice, but it should be hers to make.

 

[MelissaShae]

it's her body, but are we assuming the father is present, because it is also his choice.

If they baby is healthy then I have to say no that it is not right and an act of selfishness.

 

[cpejmmomma]

No, abortion is never right.

 

[WatersMoon110]

No, it is a sin to directly abort an unborn child.

I'm sorry, but could you maybe tell me exactly where in the Bible it says that abortion is a sin. Because I, frankly, can't find anything that speaks out "directly" against it.

Are you, perhaps, interpreting "Thou shall not Murder" to be against abortion? I know some people do, but not everyone (since it has to be a matter of personal interpretation).

Thanks!

 

[WatersMoon110]

I see no reason why this sort of abortion could be considered any worse, or better, than any other elective abortion. And, other than to the people involved, abortion really can be considered ethically neutral.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I see no reason why this sort of abortion could be considered any worse, or better, than any other elective abortion. And, other than to the people involved, abortion really can be considered ethically neutral.

What is it then to the people involved?

 

[WatersMoon110]

What is it then to the people involved?

Depends on the people. There are situations where abortion is the best choice (and so ethically good) for both the woman and the man involved. There are situations where abortion is not even an option for them (because they are Pro-Life or because they want a child, or whatever). And there are situations where abortion is a bad choice (meaning that it would make one or both people very unhappy for a long time), and hopefully they choose a different option. It all depends on the people and their own personal ethical code. Only they can know which of the options available to them is the best one.

But, to those people not involved in any given abortion (unless they attempt to force their way into it, through protesting, lawsuits, or just trying to claim that even though they don't know it happened it effects them), abortion can be seen as ethically neutral, as it has no real effect. I believe, though I could be wrong, the statistics are that there is (on average, I assume) one abortion and ten births every two seconds, in the US. Neither one of us was effected by these events occurring (since I assume that you also didn't give birth while I was writing this).

 

[MoonlessNight]

Your statement strikes me as something like "Eisenstein's Criterion is mathematically a neutral statement (neither true nor false) because it has no impact on me." That may be true, but does it affect the essence of the thing?

Here we have an act which occurs. It seems to me that if it should be morally anything at all then it should be able to classified that way by anyone, having the right facts.

I understand that you are saying that it has no impact on me. But to say it is "morally neutral" to me seems a weird jump. Are events moral to me to the extent that they affect me? I mean, there are loads of atrocities commited in history, but practically none of them have had much of an effect on me. Should I then call them morally neutral?

But of course you have said this:

It all depends on the people and their own personal ethical code.

Which seems to me to be saying that what is moral to me is all determined by what I think is best anyway. Ignoring for the moment the fact that I might have opinions about what is best in issues that have no impact on me, I don't know what we can possibly say in discussion of any act with this view.

I guess the thing that gets me about it is that it seems so obstructive to discussion. You could post the same response to any personal moral issue really, and I'm not sure where it gets us.

 

[flicka]

Selective abort for multiple fetuses does occur. In twins there would probably be a pretty compelling reason since there is always a risk of loosing the entire pregnancy. This could only be a decision made between the woman (or the couple) and the doctor. There are way too many unknown variables for anyone else to make a judgment.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Your statement strikes me as something like "Eisenstein's Criterion is mathematically a neutral statement (neither true nor false) because it has no impact on me." That may be true, but does it affect the essence of the thing?

Here we have an act which occurs. It seems to me that if it should be morally anything at all then it should be able to classified that way by anyone, having the right facts.

I understand that you are saying that it has no impact on me. But to say it is "morally neutral" to me seems a weird jump. Are events moral to me to the extent that they affect me? I mean, there are loads of atrocities commited in history, but practically none of them have had much of an effect on me. Should I then call them morally neutral?

But of course you have said this:



Which seems to me to be saying that what is moral to me is all determined by what I think is best anyway. Ignoring for the moment the fact that I might have opinions about what is best in issues that have no impact on me, I don't know what we can possibly say in discussion of any act with this view.

I guess the thing that gets me about it is that it seems so obstructive to discussion. You could post the same response to any personal moral issue really, and I'm not sure where it gets us.

Ethically neutral, not morally. Morals (in my opinion) are a personal thing, ethics effect everyone equally. Laws are based on ethical codes, personal religious beliefs are based on morals. Not to mention that it is unethical to make abortion illegal or to deny it to women who wish to get one, without an immediate alternative.

You have every right to say that you feel abortion is wrong. You need never get an abortion or even associate with anyone who would. But, frankly, other people's abortions do not effect you, and you would be very hard put to prove that they do.

I'm not saying that all acts are ethically neutral, but I feel that abortion is an act that, at this time, I consider to be ethically neutral.

Perhaps I need to explain myself more...

Outlawing abortion is unethical. All people have the right to control their own bodies. This includes the right to deny use of their bodies to anyone else. Therefore, pregnant woman have the right to deny use of their body to unborn humans. Because, until viability, unborn humans cannot survive outside of the pregnant woman's body, the only ways to imminently remove them result in their death. Thus, until there is an alternative to abortion which allows the removal of an unborn human without resulting in its death (like fetal transplant surgery or artificial wombs), abortion must remain legal. To do otherwise is to deny control over her body to a pregnant woman.

Since abortion cannot ethically be outlawed at this time, I feel that abortion cannot be considered unethical. But I wouldn't say that it is always ethical to get an abortion, so I wouldn't call it an ethical act either. Thus I would state that it is, at this point in time, an ethically neutral act - neither ethical or unethical.

 

[Monica02]

I'm sorry, but could you maybe tell me exactly where in the Bible it says that abortion is a sin. Because I, frankly, can't find anything that speaks out "directly" against it.

Are you, perhaps, interpreting "Thou shall not Murder" to be against abortion? I know some people do, but not everyone (since it has to be a matter of personal interpretation).

Thanks!

What makes you think abortion or anything else needs to be directly mentioned in the Bible? It does say in the Bible that the Bible itself needs interpreted and it is not open to personal interpretation - nilly willy (Acts 8: 30 - 31)..

Abortion is not mentined in the Bible but since the Magesterium of the Church also is source of the deposit of faith then they can declare dogma (2nd Thess. 2:15).

It is a dogma of the Church that direct abortion is sinful, provided it meets the criteria for mortal sin (grave matter - always, full knowledge and full consent depends on circumstances).