You are on page 1of 2

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives

cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the
primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the preborn patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional,
is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional
killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.
Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not
necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has
breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill
the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion.
Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be
controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the
physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these
cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. The
necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no
justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies
from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was
unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.
They've also stated that while treating cancer or other conditions may cause
the unintentional death of a baby, that's clearly not the same thing as an
abortion, as every reasonable attempt will also be made to save the baby.Dr
Sam Coulter Smith, Master of the Rotunda Maternity Hospital, explained to a
Oireachtas Committe hearing: "When we are talking about saving mothers'
lives, we should not use the terms 'abortion' and 'saving mothers' lives' in the
same sentence, full stop. It is a dreadful reflection on anyone who would
actually do that. This is about saving mothers' lives, preserving dignity and
not stigmatising anybody. These are wanted pregnancies, loved pregnancies,
and intervention has to be made to save the mother's life. To call it an
abortion is wrong."
That Symposium also heard from a world-renowned cancer specialist, Dr
Frédéric Amant, who has been described by the Lancet as 'leading the
agenda on cancer in pregnancy' for his work on the safe delivery of
chemo/radiotherapy during pregnancy. He confirmed that:"In the case of
cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve
maternal prognosis". 5Professor Eamon O'Dwyer also addressed the
Symposium saying:"During my 35 years as Professor of Gynaecology and
Obstetrics at University College Galway, and Director of the Hospital
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology I delivered - with these hands over 9000 children in Galway.From my experience, I believe I am entitled to
say that there are no circumstances where the life of the mother may only be
saved through the deliberate, intentional destruction of her unborn child in
the womb.At the same time, I fully support the statement from the Medical
Council - of which I was a founding member - which said that to withhold
necessary treatment from a woman because of pregnancy is unethical as well
as professional misconduct, even though such treatment might lead to the
death of her unborn child." 6

(11:32:44 PM) Chris Antenucci: That Symposium also heard from a worldrenowned cancer specialist, Dr Frédéric Amant, who has been described
by the Lancet as 'leading the agenda on cancer in pregnancy' for his work on
the safe delivery of chemo/radiotherapy during pregnancy. He confirmed
that:"In the case of cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy
does not improve maternal prognosis". 5Professor Eamon O'Dwyer also
addressed the Symposium saying:"During my 35 years as Professor of
Gynaecology and Obstetrics at University College Galway, and Director of the
Hospital Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology I delivered - with these
hands - over 9000 children in Galway.From my experience, I believe I am
entitled to say that there are no circumstances where the life of the mother
may only be saved through the deliberate, intentional destruction of her
unborn child in the womb.At the same time, I fully support the statement
from the Medical Council - of which I was a founding member - which said
that to withhold necessary treatment from a woman because of pregnancy is
unethical as well as professional misconduct, even though such treatment
might lead to the death of her unborn child."
as described above, another reason abortion is never medically necessary to
save the life of a mother, even if she has cancer, is because there's no
evidence that abortion increases a woman's chances of surviving a life
threatening condition of any kind. In fact, it increases her chances of dying
: Liz Mair ?@LizMair 16h16 hours ago@chrisantenucci I think we can safely
say that once all major signs of life that we'd identify in a fully-grown human
are detectable, alive.
(11:52:51 PM) Chris Antenucci: My response to this is that it's a completely
arbitrary definition of when life begins that isn't found in any medical or
biology textbook. Any textbook and any scientist who's studied early
development, genetics, and biology in general will say that life begins either
at conception or once the embryo is formed, because at its earliest stages it
has all the characteristics of a life. Just because it doesn't resemble a fully
formed human being at those stages, doesn't mean it isn't alive.
So as far as any scientific journal or book is concerned, your
definition of life doesn't equate with the scientific community's consensus on
when human life begins. Seems you may have picked that point in time in
the pregnancy as the point at which life begins out of convenience to justify
abortion, otherwise you wouldn't be able to justify it since you'd have to
admit a life is being destroyed at any
stage . . . .http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/08/41-quotes-from-medicaltextbooks-prove-human-life-begins-at-conception/