I was on another discussion thread with someone and she told me that this girl she knows got an ultra sound that apparently gave evidence that the baby has no brain. She got an abortion but apparently was shunned by her church. If she hadn't gone through with the procedure then both she and the baby would have died. My question is this. Is it still wrong to abort a baby with no brain but it's body is still somehow being kept alive in the mother's womb?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), July 13, 2004

Answers

bump

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), July 13, 2004.

Dear D

Not another disingenuous question about abortion. You know the answer. Deliberately killing an innocent human being because it is defective is always wrong.

Btw your latest story is obviously an urban myth. "she told me this girl she knows"... "APPARENTLY was shunned by her church" ??? Which church? Who/when/where? Did they excommunicate her? That's the only way I can think of that a whole church can "shun" somebody. Surely that would have made the evening news.

Come on, seriously. I'm no expert but if a baby had no brain I'm almost certain he/she would die before he/she grew big enough to even show up on an ultrasound.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 13, 2004.

And please explain by what possible mechanism is carrying a baby with no brain possibly (not to mention CERTAINLY as you claim) fatal to the mother?

Come on DJ, ask us some REAL questions, not this mindless baiting.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 13, 2004.

Steve,

I think what D Joseph is referring to is

anencephaly n: a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. A congenital absence of the brain and cranial vault, with the cerebral hemispheres completely missing or greatly reduced in size

Now, address the question and if you can't then don't throw accusations at the poster.

Peace!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 13, 2004.

If it isn't wrong to kill a little girl or boy because he/she has no brain, then why would it be wrong to kill a child with half a brain? If it isn't wrong to kill a baby with half a brain, who could say it is wrong to kill a baby with 75% normal brain function? If it's acceptable to kill a baby with 75% brain function, why would it be wrong to kill an adult with the same problem? Hitler didn't think it was wrong. Neither do some people today. This is the mentality spawned by legalized abortion. If a person doesn't measure up to some arbitrary standard of perfection, just execute them. If they would be a burden on society, just treat them as non-human and get rid of them. In a society that doesn't protect everyone, no-one is safe. The elderly and infirm may be the next group to be classified as dispensable. Pray that when today's "abortion rights" activists reach old age, they don't discover that their efforts have resulted in signing their own death warrants, as is currently the case in the Netherlands.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2004.

Nice post, Paul. That was excellent.

In times of difficult pregnancies, St. Gianna Beretta Molla may intercede! This newly cannonized (May 2004) Saint can be used as an intercessor. She, herself died as a result of a difficult pregnancy and set her safety aside for the sake of her unborn baby.

God can/will provide a miracle if it is his will. God will over-ride science. We just need faith to make it happen.

We need more prayer in the world for the end to abortion.

-- Jennifer (jrabs@jrabs.com), July 13, 2004.

let us, however, seek to answer the question, without a judgement based on certain criteria which may (or may not) exist in this case:

1) that the baby has some defect by which it is dead... for example, it is born without a stomach, heart, lungs, or brain and there is no way to correct the problem. the babies life is only sustained by virtue of the mother's womb.

2) that the baby's birth will cause the mother to die, or will cause serious medical conditions such as a blastula, which may make future reproduction capability null and or cause severe lifelong medical trauma to the child.

3) that the motion in question is not an active abortion, but rather a passive one... such as a medicine to save the mother's life which will, as a side effect, exterminate the life of the (already dead) child.

The church, if i'm not mistaken, has taught that under these conditions a passive abortion may be an acceptable practice. Paul M, i have heard you defend people with less criteria than this, although i agree with your view as well.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 13, 2004.

No offense, I think Paul M's answer is perfectly sufficient and succinct, far better than I can ever manage.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 13, 2004.

First off , steve what’s up with calling my question disingenuous and baiting. Sorry, I don’t make it a habbit of baiting other Catholics and my question was sincere from what I have been told. Sure, mabe I didn’t all the information on it but I’m not one of those protestants who tries to make catholics look bad with their own teachings. I was born and raised Catholic and proud of it.

Paul M, good answer but I already agree with what you say here and if that was what I was getting at I would never have asked it. I was thinking of a baby that has absolutely no brain whatsoever. I still appreciate the response.

To Paul H. Your #1 answer was what I was looking for but to me if a baby is born without a heart can it still not be saved? Basically the center of my question was that if it is possible to have a baby grow with 100 percent of it’s brain missing, would that be considered a human life that is still alive. Sure mabe the body is still living but is the soul still there? Anyways I found your answer very insightful. However I did have some problem accepting the second part of your #2 answer for it seems that would be covered with Paul M’s answer.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), July 13, 2004.

Dear D,

I realized what you were asking about. And my response was that taking away that particular person's right to life is the inevitable first step toward taking away the right to life of other less seriously handicapped persons. Once you open the door a crack, the flood pours in.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2004.

D, I apologize if I misconstrued your intentions. I seem to remember you asking very similar questions before. Possibly I have you confused with someone else.

The soul is not “in” the brain. It is “in” the whole human body (though not literally “in” it because it’s not a physical thing). If a human being is living, he/she has a soul, even if he/she has no brain.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 13, 2004.

D Joseph,

lest i be misunderstood, in my first post the situation where abortion in that case would be acceptable would only be if all three conditions were met, NOT if only one was met.

Vincent,

no offense taken. Paul M had a great answer, that the simple defficiency is not reason enough to abort the child. I, however, wished to examine the further case that not only was there a deficiency but that the baby would ALSO threaten the mothers life during birth.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 14, 2004.

Steve....apology accepted.

Paul M...Understood

Paul H...That clears things up as I was just going to ask you where the church teaches your #1 answer from your last post. But since you mean all 3 put together then it makes more sense.

-- newf (newfiedufie@msn.com), July 14, 2004.