# I find it difficult to accept the doctrine of double effect as it applies to abortions **URL:** \ **Category:** General\ **Created:** [November 5, 2026, 4:19pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/i-find-it-difficult-to-accept-the-doctrine-of-double-effect-as-it-applies-to-abortions/4345 "2026-11-05T16:19:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aleksey2002](https://forum.catholictalk.net/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/a/34f0e0/32.png) [@Aleksey2002](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Aleksey2002)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2026, 4:19pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/i-find-it-difficult-to-accept-the-doctrine-of-double-effect-as-it-applies-to-abortions/4345/1 "2026-11-05T16:19:29Z")
I am studying the Catholic Church and its teachings, considering the possibility of converting to Catholicism. However, I do not understand why the Church explicitly forbids abortion even when there are medical indications involving the health or life of the mother. While the issue regarding health—in the sense that health cannot take precedence over life—is somewhat clearer, what about cases where the mother’s life itself is at risk? None of the articles I have read on this subject have provided answers to my questions. First and foremost, I would like to cite a response from the Holy Office. _The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires._ Wikipedia: Craniotomy was thus prohibited in 1884 and again in 1889. In 1895 the Holy See excluded the inducing of non-viable premature birth and in 1889 established the principle that any direct killing of either fetus or mother is wrong; in 1902 it ruled out the direct removal of an ectopic embryo to save the mother’s life, but did not forbid the removal of the infected fallopian tube, thus causing an indirect abortion.(see below). In 1930 Pope Pius XI ruled out what he called “the direct murder of the innocent” as a means of saving the mother. The Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes”. To begin with, this is the first part of my questions; I will save the rest for another time so that there is sufficient space to address them. My questions are as follows: 1. Are these positions objectively morally infallible, or are they subject to revision? 2. Is it truly just to prohibit abortion—the termination of a fetus or child—in cases where the mother might objectively die, leaving the child an orphan, or leaving an entire family without a mother? This is a very difficult question for me. If this is an infallible teaching, is this really what God desires? It is often stated that there is never a necessity to kill a fetus; however, based on the information I have, certain medical conditions—particularly cardiovascular issues—may necessitate an abortion rather than other forms of treatment. 1. As mentioned above, in 1902 it was ruled that the direct removal of an ectopic embryo to save the mother’s life was impermissible, though the removal of an infected fallopian tube—which results in an indirect abortion—was not prohibited. I am not entirely clear: is this still the current practice? I have come across information suggesting that Catholic directives permit the removal of a fallopian tube, but not the induction of labor. Is the presence of an infection a strict requirement, or has the doctrine evolved such that the ectopic pregnancy itself is sufficient? I struggle to understand: does this not create a risk of death for women, especially in situations where it is clear that the child cannot be saved? There is this report—which I assume may have been produced by those with a liberal perspective, though I believe it still warrants consideration. Please forgive any errors in my English, as it is not my native language; I am happy to rephrase if necessary. [https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/healthcaredenied.pdf](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/healthcaredenied.pdf) 1. Are there any works by moral theologians that discuss the boundaries of this practice? What could be changed—or would that constitute a moral heresy? I earnestly request an answer to these questions; they trouble and frighten me greatly, and I am unable to find an objective answer to them. ---
**Author:** ![Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/user_avatar/forum.catholictalk.net/cade_one/32/34_2.png) [@Cade\_One](https://forum.catholictalk.net/u/Cade_One)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2026, 6:18pm UTC](https://forum.catholictalk.net/t/i-find-it-difficult-to-accept-the-doctrine-of-double-effect-as-it-applies-to-abortions/4345/2 "2026-11-05T18:18:54Z")
> [@Aleksey2002](#): > > I do not understand why the Church explicitly forbids abortion even when there are medical indications involving the health or life of the mother. The first thing one needs to understand is what we consider to be abortion and what we do not consider to be abortion. My Wife and I lost our baby boy late in the pregnancy (one of the hardest things we’ve been through, but God also blessed us during that time of loss). What really hurt my Wife was when she read a Facebook post from a relative (political activist) state that the procedure of forcing a Mother’s body to deliver the remains of our deceased baby “is an abortion.” I assure you that we did not abort our unborn baby! And to call what happened to us an abortion is disgusting. An analogy would be if you are on a ship in the middle of the ocean and you discover a stow-away. Killing the person and throwing them overboard is not the same things as discovering a lifeless body and then removing the body from the ship. What else is not considered to be an abortion? Let’s say a woman finds out she has uterine cancer and they go in to treat the cancer and as an unintended result the life of an unborn child is tragically lost as a result of treating the disease, this is not the same as a woman intentionally ending the life of an unborn human being. And to act like this is the same thing as targeting the life of a baby is sick in my opinion. An analogy would be if you were trying to protect yourself and you are aiming for a threat, but in the process you accidentally shoot an innocent bystander. Analogies are not perfect, but I think they do help in illustrating a point. We live in an age where doctors are able to save both mother and child in most cases. And that is the Catholic position. We are a _culture of life_ not a _culture of death_. The Catholic Christian Church is also a culture of healing. So, if you or someone you know has made the choice or has been coerced into having an abortion on demand (or upon request), God’s Mercy is greater than any sin we have ever done. I personally know a saint of a woman who had an abortion when she was 16. If you knew this lady, you never would have imagined her doing such an act! Not only is she now one of the most joy-filled, pro-life individuals I know, but she later gave birth to beautiful, identical twin girls! So, you never know how God can use one’s sorrow and pain to inspire others. > [@](#): > > I earnestly request an answer to these questions; they trouble and frighten me greatly, and I am unable to find an objective answer to them. First, I would say _be not afraid_. These types of topics can be very emotional and personal, especially if you or someone you care about relates to this topic. I don’t know if I have addressed your direct questions, but I hope it helps you understand that we do not believe the ends justifying the means. Let me give you an inverse of how the Church’s teaching on this relates to life. Some people are surprised to find out that Catholic Christians are opposed to IVF, because we are a culture of life. But, again, the ends do not justify the means. Creating human life outside of the Marital gift is disordered. When you remove the pro-creative and/or the unitive aspect of s-e-x between a husband and a wife, it is not good and Catholic Christians cannot therefore justify what is not good. Another reason that IVF is not embraced by the Catholic Church is not because we hate life, but because there is a common practice of _selecting_ the most “viable” embryos (human beings) and discarding the others! My Wife and I have a good friend who is not Catholic, but is a Christian. She an her husband did in vitro fertilization and chose not to abort any of their babies and so they gave birth to triplets! Though the means in which they chose to conceive their children was disordered, the three lives that resulted are not bad, but good. Does this make sense? Another example might be how rape and incest are evil, but children that are conceived as a result of such immoral acts are not bad, but good. And for this reason, the Catholic Christian Church holds that it is intrinsically evil to kill an unborn baby, because of rape or incest. Also, a child that is conceived outside of Marriage is not bad, however the fact that the parents of the child were not Married is not good. I don’t know the average age of those having abortions, but the two individuals that I know in my own life who regret having abortions were under the age of 18 and unMarried when they made that choice. So, I want to stress that abortion will not take the shame of having s-e-x outside of God’s plan away; rather abortion will add even greater guilt on top of that. Jesus did not come to condemn, but to forgive and remove that shame and guilt, which is a natural biproduct of sin. We can either choose to let this guilt lead us into deeper despair or we can turn to (or back to) God’s love and healing grace. Thoughts?