Abortion And Ectopic Pregnancy

[catharina]

I am Catholic and I am familliar with the thinking behind the double effect and its implications for the use of MTX to treat an ectopic pregnancy. My qualm, however, is that recourse to MTX would help to preserve the fertility of the mother and thus allow her more certainly to respond to God’s call to procreate in the future. As has been noted, the chances of an embryo surviving ectopic implantation are next to nil. Certainly God knows this and would look with favor upon a treatment that preserves the mother’s life and her ability to conceive in the future, no?

Fantasies about the future have no impact on the here and now.
God is now calling the mother to act - without resorting to killing her child.
It is really that simple.
Pretending that God would prefer an act of infant-death **is **pretense.

 

[OraLabora]

No, no, I very much appreciate your apology, but you didn’t offend me! I’m saying the diffrence between the two is obvious, and I when we overthink it, we make it harder than it is!

A child inside his mother-- whether in the womb or the tube or wherever-- is incapable of intentionally inflicting harm on the mother. The child is ENTIRELY dependent upon the mother to sustain his life-- he has no independence whatsoever. The child, should he perish, is subsequently labeled an “immaculata”, meaning, clean.

An attacker-- whether Ted Bundy or the mentally handicapped adult, is NOT dependent upon his/her victim for life. The attacker, no matter how mentally handicapped, is not without sin, not without culpability.

This is an especially interesting topic because my daughter is adopted. Her biological father IS the attacker you describe-- limited mental functioning, and yet, has physcially harmed many people (although has not killed them). There is quite a difference between this person, and my innocent baby.

Sometimes we need only have our hypothetical arguments become reality, for clarity to settle in!

I’ll buy your argument that the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for life (and ex-utero until the age of reason).

But isn’t even the fetus tainted by the stain of original sin? None of us are truly conceived innocent. That was reserved as a special grace for Mary and then by extension Jesus who was conceived of a wholly innocent mother and the Holy Spirit.

It doesn’t mean of course that the fetus will become a serial killer or a killer period.

But we do know that in an ectopic pregnancy, a fetus is both a threat to life and not viable. It will die whichever means used.

 

[OraLabora]

There can be no claim of self defense since the baby has NO intent to kill anyone.

Interestingly, our states (Canada and the US and I assume elsewhere) have given the order to shoot down a hijacked airliner full of people if it poses a threat to a city. Presumably the passengers (including the possibility of fetuses in pregnant passengers) don’t intend to kill anyone either. It’s not a Catholic question of course but an interesting moral dilemma nonetheless.

I see your point though, but I’m not sure I buy it. Regardless of the intent of the fetus, the threat of death is very much real. And the outcome for the fetus will be the same regardless of the method used, but in one method there is the chance of preserving fertility.

But it is a horrible moral dilemma to be placed in nonetheless.

So assuming the Church is correct, and I have no doubt she is in spite of my difficulty understanding why, how do we deal with a person who chose the drug instead of having her only remaining fallopian tube removed? How should the Church view the level of culpability of the person making that choice? Assuming full knowledge, can the heavy emotional component ever make that choice one of full consent?

If you were involved in pastoral care, what would you say to such a person?

I recognize that part of the problem is that doctors (possibly no Catholic docs available at the time) may give advice that the person takes because they don’t know better. That’s not full knowledge. But assuming full knowledge…?

 

[yellowdaisy]

Yes, the fetus will die either way-- the difference, friend, is whether or not YOU killed it!

And of course, we are all concieved with the stain of origional sin. The difference for an unborn baby is that they havent yet commited a sin. Certainly they are not conceived without origional sin, but it’s sor tof like…they havent gotten around to doing any sins yet

 

[yellowdaisy]

In response to your post about culpability-- Yes, I think we are found culpable to some degree.

Preservation of fertility is not a good excuse to kill the child God has blessed you with at the moment. The end does not justify the means-- and further more, I consider my own permanently impaired fertility to be a condition of God’s choosing-- one I must bear with patience and understanding that He has His reasons, which I may not understand at the moment.

Like I said before, we have a repsonsiblity, as people of child bearing age, to KNOW what our church teaches BEFORE we find ourselves faced with this situation!

 

[catharina]

Interestingly, our states (Canada and the US and I assume elsewhere) have given the order to shoot down a hijacked airliner full of people if it poses a threat to a city. Presumably the passengers (including the possibility of fetuses in pregnant passengers) don’t intend to kill anyone either. It’s not a Catholic question of course but an interesting moral dilemma nonetheless.

I see your point though, but I’m not sure I buy it. Regardless of the intent of the fetus, the threat of death is very much real. And the outcome for the fetus will be the same regardless of the method used, but in one method there is the chance of preserving fertility.

But it is a horrible moral dilemma to be placed in nonetheless.

So assuming the Church is correct, and I have no doubt she is in spite of my difficulty understanding why, how do we deal with a person who chose the drug instead of having her only remaining fallopian tube removed? How should the Church view the level of culpability of the person making that choice? Assuming full knowledge, can the heavy emotional component ever make that choice one of full consent?

**If you were involved in pastoral care, what would you say to such a person?

I recognize that part of the problem is that doctors (possibly no Catholic docs available at the time) may give advice that the person takes because they don’t know better. That’s not full knowledge. But assuming full knowledge…?**

Assuming full knowledge and the choice of chemical (drug) abortion, I’d ask the patient
to allow me to send a priest to her bedside for confession and reconciliation.
If a patient knows that she has chosen to be complicit in abortion (and she has) then she
(if a Catholic) is in desperate need of counseling, becoming repentant and forgiveness.

 

[crazzeto]

As mentioned a direct abortion is never acceptable, and at least from my perspective as a lay man (medically speaking) I’m not sure how you would perform one in a case like this with out damaging something. But who knows.

Regardless, what action may be taken is to remove the "damanged’ filopian tube (or overay or whever this thing implants) which quite sadly does reslut in the death of the Child indirectly.

 

[catharina]

Yes, the fetus will die either way-- the difference, friend, is whether or not YOU killed it!

And of course, we are all concieved with the stain of origional sin. The difference for an unborn baby is that they havent yet commited a sin. Certainly they are not conceived without origional sin, but it’s sor tof like…they havent gotten around to doing any sins yet

Exactly.

 

[OraLabora]

Exactly.

If you remove the fallopian tube, you kill the baby.

You are denying it that which it needs for life. In this case for a reason deemed moral.

How is this form of killing any different than denying feeding and oxygen to a comatose patient, though in this case the intent isn’t deemed moral?

 

[catharina]

If you remove the fallopian tube, you kill the baby.

You are denying it that which it needs for life. In this case for a reason deemed moral.

How is this form of killing any different than denying feeding and oxygen to a comatose patient, though in this case the intent isn’t deemed moral?

Removing a ruptured (or rupturing) fallopian tube, there is certainty the baby is DEAD.
Babies do not survive a tubal pregnancy in any circumstance. They die from the rupture.

 

[yellowdaisy]

I beg to differ Catherina-- my baby was NOT yet dead when mytube was removed. he was very much alive.

My situation had reached the point where removal of the tube was IMMEDIATELY necessary to save my life. Now, if we’d waited another few hours, the baby would LIKELY have been dead also-- but it’s equally l ikely that we’d both be dead.

The difference is that the surgeon preformed an action on MY body to save MY life. NO action was preformed on the body of my child. That is the difference-- not that the child died, but whether or not you raise your hands to him, and kill him.

The surgeon raised hands only to ME-- the secondary result was that my Noah died. That he would have died within a day or so anyway is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that no person raised a hand to him specifically. His little heart stopped beating at the moment of God’s choosing-- not at the moment of man’s choosing.

 

[OraLabora]

Removing a ruptured (or rupturing) fallopian tube, there is certainty the baby is DEAD.
Babies do not survive a tubal pregnancy in any circumstance. They die from the rupture.

And if you remove it prior to rupture when it is evident that it is an ectopic pregnancy?

 

[yellowdaisy]

For me, I waited. We didnt jump right to invasive, dangerous surgery right away. We waited until it was necessary–

Something most people dont realize is that seeing an ecotpic pregnancy on an ultrasound is next to impossible until the pregnancy reaches a certain number of weeks. Most of hte time, the doctor is just guessing where the baby is, by ruling out where it is NOT.

It’s not liek there’s usually a clear picture where they can say “yup, hes right there, otuside the womb”. Usually, a pregnancy cant be seen by ultrasound until the sixth week anyway, and unless you have a SYMPTOMATIC rupture (which wouldnt be till weeks 6-8 anyway), you wouldn tknow you had an ecoptic. You’d have low beta levels and assume you were miscarrying normally.

In all three of my miscarriages, we have had to wait-- visiting hte doctor every day, sometimes twice a day, for monitoring, to be sure of 1. the baby’s location within my body, 2. the impending threat to my life, and 3. his/her definitive non-viability.

You never NEVER jump the gun on a living child, even if he is living in the wrong part of your body. You need to be sure-- and being sure takes a LONG time sometimes.

 

[crazzeto]

yellowdaisy,

I’m sorry to read you’ve had to suffer through this kind of pain. All I can say is I greatly admire you for how you handle this. God bless,

 

[yellowdaisy]

Thanks Crazzeto

In the moment, especially physically, it’s rough. But on the other side, you realize that your babies are safe in the arms of Jesus, waiting to meet you in heaven! This life is only the blink of an eye, and then we’ll be together for ETERNITY!!! (if I make it to heaven anyway! lol!)

I lost my babies very early into their lives-- but they’re not really gone at all! I am blessed to have each of them, and, being part of the adoption world, I know many MANY women w ho would literally live their right arm if only to experience pregnancy for this short time, which I have been blessed to experience THREE times now!

My peace is a gift from God, as are my children! I seek to honor His giving them life by acting in accordance with His Church when I’m pregnant. The first time I got caught off guard and almost talked into something immoral-- wont happen again!

 

[catharina]

I beg to differ Catherina-- my baby was NOT yet dead when mytube was removed. he was very much alive.

**That makes for a more emotional decision for all -
but it’s completely allowed by the Catholic Church.
I offer my sympathy and have great respect for you.

In general, it’s likely that a fully ruptured tube is a site for a dead/dying baby.**

My situation had reached the point where removal of the tube was IMMEDIATELY necessary to save my life. Now, if we’d waited another few hours, the baby would LIKELY have been dead also-- but it’s equally l ikely that we’d both be dead.

The difference is that the surgeon preformed an action on MY body to save MY life. NO action was preformed on the body of my child. That is the difference-- not that the child died, but whether or not you raise your hands to him, and kill him.

The surgeon raised hands only to ME-- the secondary result was that my Noah died. That he would have died within a day or so anyway is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that no person raised a hand to him specifically. His little heart stopped beating at the moment of God’s choosing-- not at the moment of man’s choosing.

 

[mchale]

If you remove the fallopian tube, you kill the baby.

You are denying it that which it needs for life. In this case for a reason deemed moral.

How is this form of killing any different than denying feeding and oxygen to a comatose patient, though in this case the intent isn’t deemed moral?

For your analogy to be comparable, I think you need to add a few more conditions.

Lets say the comatose man is likely to die anyway. In addition, you are in a disaster or war situation and there is a second patient who needs to Oxygen and food to survive. You have two people, A and B, you can save A but not B, and there is no way to save B but not A. Providing A with the food and Oxygen is not killing B, even though B will die without them, because you are doing what you can to preserve life.

I think we should make clear here, that intention is as important as the action involved. Directly killing is never acceptable. You can’t kill the Comatose Patient to provide the other patient oxygen and food, but if the patient dies as an unintended side effect of that removal it is a different story.

Likewise, a woman simply can’t have organs removed to stop an unwanted pregnancy, at that point, it is just a different type of abortion. Ultimately death cannot be a desired outcome.

–
Bill

 

[Arch_Stanton]

My sister is currently dealing with an ectopic pregnancy.

Unfortunately, she has opted for administration of methotrexate to terminate the pregnancy.

Until I’d heard she was facing one, I wasn’t even sure what an ectopic pregnancy was or what the options were for dealing with one morally. I’ve heard what my predominantly non-Catholic family has told me about her situation. And recently looked into the Church’s teaching on matters related to ectopic pregnancies. Unlike the Church, my family believes abortions are permissable in situations where the life of the mother is threatened. And I’ve heard nothing to indicate she believes or knows for certain that she is in danger, etc.

Sadly, there is not much I can do or say because administration of the methotrexate has already begun. Had I known more about this before she proceeded with the termination, I would’ve had a moral obligation to voice the immorality of this choice even though it likely wouldn’t have averted the termination.

Frankly at this point, I don’t see much point in raising the issue. It’s already happening. Talking about it now would only aggravate an already upset family. Instead, I feel it’s best to tend to prayer, asking for God to forgive this family; my sister in particular for this abominable course of action; my slowness in seeking out the Church’s guidance on this; and above all, pray for the soul of the unborn.

 

[heavenisamazing]

I recently suffered a ruptured ectopic, I was told I had to have immediate surgery as I only had 2 hours to live, I refused until they made sure the baby was dead, they told me there would be no time for a second scan and they would not be able to see due to the amount of blood,

I then told them I wanted to speak to the priest, The Catholic priest told me I did not have a choice the baby stood no chance. I felt God spoke through him.

Although I did ask the surgeon when the operation was over, if my baby was dead, she told me the baby was heomoraging, then walked away without giving me a straight answer.

Although I know my baby would not have survived I still find it so difficult knowing that it may not have been dead until my tube was removed.

 

[x0stephanie]

I don’t know if this has been discussed already but does removing the fallopian tube, or part of it affect your ability to conceive afterwards?