Did The Baby Live?

I recently posted a thread about Direct Abortion,where its conceivable that an embryo can land and bore into the liver in abdomen,resulting in the death of Mother and Embryo,liver cant be removed,like a falopian tube,only removal of Embryo would save Mothers life.
Can anyone tell me if they know of a case where the Embryo grew bored into liver, to a Baby and Mother lived ,or one or the other lived in this case ?
There was a miracle case where he Embryo landed on the liver ,but never bored unto liver,but fed blood from it,and grew to a healthy baby,mother lived.

Its conceivable in the above case,a woman with a large family,who’s husband had died,she had nobody to care for her children,so for fear that they would be split apart,and reared by undesirables,decided to have the Embryo removed from liver so she would live,would this be a grave sin .

There is a Canon about fear and duress,but a different fear from above ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT

The link you posted is non-functional.

The idea that a zygote could somehow embed in the liver is quite strange - it presumes that there is a path from the Fallopian tube to the liver. There is no such path in “normal” women, and this would be a serious defect.

It is possible (and has happened) that a zygote can implant in a Fallopian tube. This is called an ectopic pregnancy, and, without surgery, is 100% fatal to both baby and mother. The baby cannot be saved, and the only hope for the mother is to have the Fallopian tube (with the baby) surgically removed.

The surgery is not contrary to Catholic doctrine, because the intent is to save the life of the mother. The loss of the baby is a “secondary effect.”

This is the same principle that the Church applies to people suffering from a painful ailment. Pain killers might hasten death, but they are not intended to cause death, and are permissible, even though death might be a “secondary effect.”

The answers i want are not about Ectopic Pregnancy,look at my thread again,hypothetical but conceivable

According to this article there have been 14 documented cases where the baby and mother survived an implantation in the liver.

Its conceivable in the above case,a woman with a large family,who’s husband had died,she had nobody to care for her children,so for fear that they would be split apart,and reared by undesirables,decided to have the Embryo removed from liver so she would live,would this be a grave sin .

There is a Canon about fear and duress,but a different fear from above ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT

It would be a sin of murder and is so stated in your link.

The claim that the fetus can ever be, under any
circumstances, an unjust aggressor cannot be accepted as correct. The
fetus is a living human being. It has been placed by nature where it
now resides. It had no voice in the decision. It cannot be called an
unjust aggressor, for it is engaged in a purely natural process.
Surely we may not call nature unjust. To do so would be to call into
question the justice of God, the Author of nature, and this is
unthinkable. Hence we must conclude that the fetus may, in no
conceivable set of circumstances, be directly killed, for this would
be murder.

I realized that. I attempted to provide an answer to an actual and similar condition. You presented a condition that seems highly improbable, but the answer would be the same. If mother+baby cannot survive, but surgery could save the mother, then surgery is permissible, even if it results in the death of the baby.

If the baby somehow implanted in a kidney, or a lung, or a heart, or the brain, the answer would still be the same as if the baby implanted in a liver.

I don’t know why the organ matters to you.

It is always a sin to kill an innocent human being.

If the poor widow with many children needed a heart transplant to live, would it be ok to get a heart from a person who is still alive? Suppose that person had been in a coma for a long time, would it be ok then?

So the only reason people think up these strange and extremely rare scenarios for pregnant women is to open the door to abortion. Don’t fall into that trap.

It would not be the same as an ectopic pregnancy. You may remove a disease part the, the fallopian tube, but you may not directly remove the embryo which would be the case if attached to the liver. According to the link, the idea is that the embryo is an unjust aggressor which the article rejects.
Pius XI: “What could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct
murder of the innocent? . . . Who would call an innocent child an
unjust aggressor?”
You may not directly kill the baby.
I was surprised to find that this could actually happen and has.:eek:

Please tell me where and when has this actually happened and did Mother and Embryo die ?
And do you know of such a case where Mother and Embryo lived or one of them lived?
Send me links if possible.
These are two of the questions i asked for in my first thread

Blessed Margaret Sinclair,Pray For Us

I would also be interested in a verifiable example.

If the baby implants any place OTHER than the wall of the uterus, it is medically impossible for the baby to survive more than a few days, because the mother will be dead in a few days.

But I’m highly skeptical that such a pregnancy has ever occurred except within the Fallopian tube. The Fallopian tube connects the ovary (where the eggs reside) with the uterus (where the eggs go). It’s a tube. It’s not supposed to have any “holes” in it to allow an egg to wind up in the abdominal cavity.

I would be interested to hear a verifiable instance where such a thing happened.

I misread the article. Only four have survived

Miracle baby ‘grew in liver’
The baby developed outside the womb

A healthy baby has been born after developing in its mother’s liver instead of in the womb.
Reports from South Africa say Nhlahla, whose name means “luck” in Zulu, is only the fourth baby ever to survive such a pregnancy.

In all, there have only been 14 documented cases of a child developing in this way.

Yes i know about the Zulu case,i posted about this in my first thread.In this case Zulu never bored into the liver,Fetus was resting and feeding blood off liver,not boring into liver.

What i was referring to and asked you for answers, was.Do you know of a case where Fetus bored into liver and fed blood off it and Mother and Baby lived or Mother lived and Fetus died while boring into liver.

I doubt both are impossible

ZULU

Blessed Margaret Sinclair,The Next Scottish Saint,Pray For Us

What do you mean by boring into according to the article

Doctors had to leave the placenta and amniotic sac in the liver, because the mother’s life would have been at risk.

That does not sound like your description but it does sound like a boring in but maybe you have a different definition?

Incredible question. It matters plenty,Church encourages us to learn as much about our faith as possible,the debate here is about abortion direct, Fetus boring into liver thus faith and morals.I am Pro-Life,and came across this in ewtn.com,i never knew about this case till i saw it there.,it would be a very trying case for any Catholic in this highly improbable decision.

St ., Ninian,Pray For Us

:nerd::nerd:

Sorry i used the wrong word,it should be,RIDDLING,(etwn.com) meaning,piercing many holes into liver,which i reckon is not as deep as boring.Another visit to optician required.

The Patron Saint Of Healthy Eyes,Pray For Me :slight_smile:

Just to clarify: that surgery cannot be one which directly attacks the unborn baby. For example, if a woman is found to have cancer of the uterus such as would normally be treated by a hysterectomy, the operation can be performed despite the fact that in the process the baby’s life would be lost. However, an abortion could not be performed before chemo, as is often recommended. The chemo can be done, but not the abortion.

If the baby somehow implanted in a kidney, or a lung, or a heart, or the brain, the answer would still be the same as if the baby implanted in a liver.

I don’t know why the organ matters to you.

Ectopic pregnancies are rare to begin with, and most are in the fallopian tubes, but there are those which occur elsewhere. Outcomes vary but as others have shown, babies have been born from extra-uterine pregnancies.

Francis,
In this debate,Fetus implanting drilling and piercing into liver,thus death of Mother and Fetus i wonder what the verdict would be.?

Catholic Canon 1323.Abortion ,constraint,fear.acted under compulsion of grave fear,of something more terrible happening provided the action is not instrinsically evil or harmful to souls

If the Mother decided to have Embryo which is the non aggressor,removed from liver, to save her life,in fear that her large family would be broken up and who would accommodate them,would the fear apply as on Canon 1323,?

Hypothetical but Conceivable.

etwn.com/library/PROFILE/INDIRECT.TXT

Taking an action directly to kill the unborn child would qualify as an intrinsic evil, and would therefore not be allowed.

If the Mother decided to have Embryo which is the non aggressor,removed from liver, to save her life,in fear that her large family would be broken up and who would accommodate them,would the fear apply as on Canon 1323,?

No, because it is an intrinsic evil which is specifically excluded in the law itself.

Again, consider the scenarios I mentioned above. In a similar situation of fear, would it be acceptable to kill another person for his or her organs?

etwn.com/library/PROFILE/INDIRECT.TXT

But this is a different fear i am referring to,its a fear of what would happen to her children.I know what you mean,i know the Church teaching,but i doubt that any Mother would let herself die knowing that the Fetus was going to die anyway,and her children split up left to God knows who.A grave sin would be committed ,but like some of the posts i have read regrading this,they would let the Mother live ,and confess the sin.And lets be honest about it,one would have to be in this horrific position to make a decision.And can you imagne it,if the Father had to watch his wife die knowing the Fetus was going to die anyway,it would be horrific

But this is a different fear i am referring to,its a fear of what would happen to her children.I know what you mean,i know the Church teaching,but i doubt that any Mother would let herself die knowing that the Fetus was going to die anyway,and her children split up left to God knows who.A grave sin would be committed ,but like some of the posts i have read regrading this,they would let the Mother live ,and confess the sin.And lets be honest about it,one would have to be in this horrific position to make a decision.And can you imagne it,if the Father had to watch his wife die knowing the Fetus was going to die anyway,it would be horrific

This is a little tricky for me because I am not a doctor, so I don’t know the medical ramifications. I know that in some similar circumstances something can be done because the action is not taken against the baby. Suppose in this instance the baby were growing inside the liver as you suggest, and the liver failed and needed to be removed for tge woman to continue to live? Now, I don’t know if that is what would happen medically. I think people can get liver transplants but whether they can live without a liver at all? I ddon’t know.

So, suppose the woman’s liver failed and she needed a tranplant… then that could happen. It would be medically treating the mother with the unfortunate side effect of tye death of her unborn baby.

However, the principle is this: the baby cannot be directly killed, no matter what. That is what is meant by an intrinsic evil. Intrinsic does not mean big; it means that the evil is within the nature of the act itself.

Now, if abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is intrinsically evil, that means that it is always and everywhere evil. There are no circumstances under which the direct, intended killing of an innocent person of any age including before birth is not evil.

You seem to be suggesting that the circumstances of the woman’s life: being widowed and having several other children, would justify an action which would not be justified under different circumstances, but this is *not *the case. Either a medical action would be morally acceptable or it would not be, and whether the woman is very rich and has no other children or very poor and widowed with several children does not change the morality of the act.

Now, this is tye sort of argument advocates of abortion pull out for people: emotional and extreme. But again, if a poor widow with several children has a healthy pregnancy but needes a heart transplant, would her state, her poverty, and her children justify *killing *someone else so she could get his heart? No! And so it is with the unborn child, whom we are equally obliged not to murder or kill.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.