Question X: Whether a pregnant mother may, to save her own life, procure the abortion of the fetus

TO PROCURE AN ABORTION is most cruel if the fetus is living; for it not only destroys the body, but also loses the soul. Thus St. Bonaventure solemnly warns in the Dieta, tit. 3, cap. 4, and in the Confessionale, cap. 2, part 13.

I ASSERT that it is not lawful to procure the abortion of a living fetus, even to save the mother's life.

IT IS PROVED by Fagundez, because the offspring possesses life without injury to the mother: therefore a grave injury is done to it if it is destroyed in order to save the mother's life.

FURTHERMORE, because we are bound to prefer spiritual life to bodily life: therefore, if the offspring is believed to be living and to be born, grave sin is committed when, deprived of Baptism, it is killed.

So with St. Bonaventure; Lessius, Tom. 1, L. 2, dub. 10, num. 67; St. Antoninus, part 3, tit. 7, cap. 2; Sayrus, lib. 7, cap. 12, num. 22; Petrus Navatus, Lib. 2 on restitution, cap. 3, num. 138 and 143; Aragon, 2. 2, question 64, art. 7; Fagundez, Lib. 5, cap. 12, num. 19; Bassaeus, V. Homicidium, 1, num. 58; Diana, tract. 5, miscel. Resol. 11, part 5.

Fagundez, moreover, ADDS that in doubt whether the offspring is living, remedies may be applied, because the condition of the possessor is better; but the mother is in possession of her certain life: this holds a fortiori if the offspring is not animated. So too Covarruvias on the Clementine si furiosus, part 2, §. 3; Sylvester, V. medicus, question 4; St. Antoninus, part 3, tit. 7, cap. 2, §. 2; Lessius, and Petrus Navarrus, cited above.

But the FETUS, if it is a male, is animated on the fortieth day; if a female, on the eightieth. So Navarrus, Sum. Lat., cap. 15, num. 14; Covarruvias, cited place; Lessius, num. 67; Sà, V. homicid. But in doubt whether it is a male or a female, it is to be believed a male, as Covarruvias and Sà say.

Certain ANATOMISTS give thirty days for the male and forty for the female. See the Hexaëmeron on Anatomy, disputation 4, question 22.

YOU WILL ASK: Whether it is lawful to cut open the belly of a pregnant mother, whose life is despaired of, so that the child may be drawn out alive.

IT IS ANSWERED: Negatively, with St. Thomas in 4. dist. 6. quaest. 1. art. 1. quaestiuncula 1. ad 4, and 3. part. quaest. 68. art. 11; Domitol. lib. 1. quaest. 14; Corduba quaest. 38. dub. 2; Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 63; Alensis 4. quaest. 8. memb. 7. art. 1; Gabriel in 4. dist. 4. q. 2. art. 3. dub. 2; St. Antoninus 3. part. tit. 4. cap. 13. §. 1; Sylvester V. Baptismus, 4; Soto in 4. dist. 5. quaest. unic. art. 11; Angelus V. Baptismus, 6; Tabien. num. 5; Armilla num. 38; Victoria de sacer. quaest. 33. The reason is, because that section is a killing: Evils are not to be done that good may come of them. But a dead body may be cut open, L. Posth. ff. de inoffic. test.

It is also illicit to give remedies for sterility. See Fagundez L. 5. cap. 13; Sanchez l. 9. disput. 20. Sixtus V forbids this de abortu, §. 5, and cap. si aliquis, and homicid. For it is against the end of generation. Nor should you say that abortion in the unanimated is closer against that end.

For I say the fetus is an aggressor against the mother's life; but not fertility.

You will object: the emission of seed is never lawful. Therefore neither is that of the fetus, which is closer to generation.

I say neither is abortion directly intended. But if it be probable that the mother also would die together with her living child; whereas with the remedy given the mother can be saved; Bassaeus says a potion may be given to her.