You either didn't read, or didn't understand what the doctor
Posted on: September 6, 2024 at 21:10:16 CT
JeffB
MU
Posts:
68876
Member For:
20.80 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
said.
She could undergo cancer treatments without intentionally killing her child as a means to an end. If her child died because of her cancer treatment(s) that would not be a direct abortion. It would be permissible under Catholic doctrine and was always permissible in all states throughout US history.
What was illegal was intentionally killing her child.
Doctors have always (until recently) treated the situation as one where two patients are involved. They are treating the mother, but trying to maximize the probability of saving her child's life too, if possible. If not, that is a sad unintended consequence of the mother's treatment... but that is a far cry from intentionally killing her child.