Abortion And Ectopic Pregnancy

[DidymusMD]

It does. Usually only one ovary ovulates at a time. Without a fallopian tube in which an ovum may unite with a sperm and then travel down toward the uterus, where it ultimately implants and grows, the fertilization process can’t take place. With one less fallopian tube, there are fewer chances for a pregnancy to start.

However, the other methods to address ectopic pregnancy, such as methotrexate or salpingotomy, come with their own risks, including scar formation and ablation of the cilia, which are the waving hair-like structures that sweep the fertilized egg down the fallopian tube, and can thus similarly reduce the fertility of the patient or even increase the chances of ectopic pregnancy in the future.

Moreover, they attack the developing baby directly, rather than simply excising the diseased tissue of the mother with the unintended consequence of the death of the baby, which is where they run afoul of morality.

It is a tough issue to grapple with any way you approach it.

 

[Zatzat]

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.

I think you’d have a moral obligation to mind your own business.

 

[catharina]

I think you’d have a moral obligation to mind your own business.

Arch Stanton is Catholic, so yes, he had a moral obligation.

 

[Zatzat]

Arch Stanton is Catholic, so yes, he had a moral obligation.

Catholics are supposed to stick their noses in the medical treatments that extended family members receive?

If I were the husband, I’d have a moral obligation to assure that he never steps foot inside my home again.

 

[catharina]

Catholics are supposed to stick their noses in the medical treatments that extended family members receive?

If I were the husband, I’d have a moral obligation to assure that he never steps foot inside my home again.

You’re married?

 

[Zatzat]

You’re married?

Yes, with children. Are you married?

 

[catharina]

Yes, with children. Are you married?

I am no longer married and my child is 35 yrs old and has a wife of four yrs.
They’re simply darling and love each other wonderfully and totally.

(Details as to end of marriage:
very personal, not announced here, involved much illness, deaths, etc…)

PS - my son is a bit of a tech-genius. (I haven’t a clue about his work; it’s Greek to me.)

 

[Zatzat]

I am no longer married and my child is 35 yrs old and has a wife of four yrs.
They’re simply darling and love each other wonderfully and totally.

(Details as to end of marriage:
very personal, not announced here, involved much illness, deaths, etc…)

PS - my son is a bit of a tech-genius. (I haven’t a clue about his work; it’s Greek to me.)

Why did you want to know if I was married?

 

[catharina]

Why did you want to know if I was married?

Because this statement of yours is so oddly proprietary:

*If I were the husband, I’d have a moral obligation to assure that he never steps foot inside my home again. *

I’ve never heard a man of my own age (60+) speak of his wife and her brother that way.

 

[Zatzat]

Because this statement of yours is so oddly proprietary:

*If I were the husband, I’d have a moral obligation to assure that he never steps foot inside my home again. *

I’ve never heard a man of my own age (60+) speak of his wife and her brother that way.

I’ve an obligation to assure my wife / family isn’t exposed to emotional abuse. Especially concerning matters related to her health and the decisions she makes with her Doctor.

 

[catharina]

I’ve an obligation to assure my wife / family isn’t exposed to emotional abuse. Especially concerning matters related to her health and the decisions she makes with her Doctor.

Yet you’re speaking of “banning” your wife’s brother from your home -
based on something you are afraid MIGHT come to pass.

That’s not justice
and that’s not mercy.

 

[Zatzat]

Yet you’re speaking of “banning” your wife’s brother from your home -
based on something you are afraid MIGHT come to pass.

That’s not justice
and that’s not mercy.

My family and I avoid toxic people. However, I wouldn’t forbid him from setting foot in my home, unless he actually stuck his nose in our business.

 

[catharina]

My family and I avoid toxic people. However, I wouldn’t forbid him from setting foot in my home, unless he actually stuck his nose in our business.

Your own post, Post # 44:

*Catholics are supposed to stick their noses in the medical treatments that extended family members receive?

If I were the husband, I'd have a moral obligation to assure that he never steps foot inside my home again. *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have only quoted you.  
You would ban your wife's brother from your home
if you didn't like what he said to your wife, his own sister?

That's extraordinary in my view.  Not in a good way.

 

[Zatzat]

Your own post, Post # 44:

*Catholics are supposed to stick their noses in the medical treatments that extended family members receive?

If I were the husband, I'd have a moral obligation to assure that he never steps foot inside my home again. *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have only quoted you.  
You would ban your wife's brother from your home
if you didn't like what he said to your wife, his own sister?

That's extraordinary in my view.  Not in a good way.

I’ll make this real clear.

If my wifes brother kept his trap closed, no problem.

If my wifes brother opened up his trap, stuck his nose in my wifes business and caused her grief over a personal medical decision she made with her doctor…adios brother you’re not welcome.

 

[catharina]

I’ll make this real clear.

If my wifes brother kept his trap closed, no problem.

If my wifes brother opened up his trap, stuck his nose in my wifes business and caused her grief over a personal medical decision she made with her doctor…adios brother you’re not welcome.

Excuse me, but we already know that the brother did not speak up.

 

[Zatzat]

Excuse me, but we already know that the brother did not speak up.

Good thing.

 

[Indica]

I accepted.greenrent.de

 

[CCelesteR]

I know I’m late here but I wanted to share.

At about 5 weeks pregnant, I started bleeding and my numbers started dropping. After multiple blood tests, we realized my numbers were still climbing, but just really slow. My doctor thought I was either miscarrying or I had an ectopic pregnancy. She explained the 3 methods of dealing with ectopics. 1) The shot, 2) Removing part of the tube and the fetus, 3) Removing the whole tube. (If there was no heartbeat, I could take the shot. If there was a heartbeat, I would need to have surgery.) I can’t remember how/why time passed but at 9 weeks my numbers were still climbing. I went in for a specialized ultrasound. We all could see my baby’s heartbeat but it was just outside of my uterus. The doctors couldn’t tell if “she” was attached to the outside of my uterus and sent me straight to ER. My doctor performed the surgery and told me that there was the potential I was going to be having a full hysterectomy if they could not control the bleeding. After the surgery, I was told they only removed the ruptured tube.

My doctors did not perform the surgery to remove the baby. They went in with the intent of stopping the bleeding and saving my life.

The above was not my choice. It was only the grace of God that what happened to me was acceptable by the church. I’m not sure what I would have chosen if I had a choice; I didn’t have an understanding of Double Effect.

There is a big difference between the three options. Removing the baby to remove “potential harm” is abortion. “Potential” since women have carried full term ectopic babies. (I know, VERY RARE.) (See… news.com.au/miracle-baby-may-be-a-world-first/story-e6frfkp9-1111116487470 ) Removing the bleeding tube from a woman to save her life is not abortion.

Side note, since I only lost one tube, I have since had a daughter.

 

[rauckr]

I have read this thread about Ectopic Pregnancy and was left troubled. I have no medical background and thus am not qualified to render a judgement as to when such a procedure would be medically necessary. Clearly, as a Catholic, I see why we leave decisions concerning the fetus in God’s hands. He is in charge of life and death.

However, we are morally justified in pursuing a surgical solution when the mother’s life is at imminent risk. I am having trouble justifying the position that it is acceptable to remove the tube with the result that the baby would die but not acceptable to remove the baby and preserve the tube. This does not pass the test of reasonableness for me. In either case we are taking action that results in 100% chance that the baby will die. He / she has no chance to live in any event with today’s technology. If the tube is diseased I understand the medical necessity for removing it. If it is not, I cannot parse the moral superiority of the one course over the other. If the outcome is not certain, then I can understand. That is not the case here. I see no basis for saying we have left it in God’s hands. The overt act of cutting out the tube has sealed the fate of the fetus.

I have read the moral arguments that were presented so restating those in the previous posts will not help me. I cannot see this as more that a semantic exercise once an overt act is undertaken leading to an inevitable outcome. This is fundamentally different than giving a terminal cancer patient increasing doses of pain medicine knowing that at some point he will die from the medication if not from the cancer. In that case, God could choose to end the cancer and the medication could be removed. It is also different than removing a feeding tube from a brain-dead patient. That patient could open their eyes and wake up and feeding would be resumed. In this case, one overt act (guaranteed to end the child’s life who can’t be saved) is allowed in order to preserve the life of the mother who can be saved while another overt act leading to the exact same result is unacceptable. This appears morally suspect to me. When technology allows any reasonable chance to save the fetus, morally we must take that chance. Once again, that is not the case here.

 

[hmbax]

I, too, am troubled by what I am reading. If the surgery spells certain death to the baby, just as the medication spells certain death to the baby, I see no difference, morally speaking! I must admit that at this time my eyes must be blinded to the explanation. I suffered severe internal damage after delivering my daughter, losing a fallopian tube in the process. My remaining fallopian tube appears to be scarred, yet there is the possibility, however slight of pregnancy. Should I become pregnant and suffer an ectopic pregnancy, then what do I do? Obviously I would wait it out and see if it resolves itself naturally. But, in the event that I am faced with removal of my only fallopian tube (in my 20’s, with one child) or preserving what little possibility I have left of fertility, I just don’t see why the Church would want me to remove the fallopian tube surgically. ALL options result in the same end for the baby. ALL OF THEM. One is very likely going to spell the end of my fertility. One may preserve it. I don’t see this as “raising my hand to kill the baby” as there is no possibility the baby will survive anyway. Once it has implanted outside the uterus, it has already begun dying. I’m not closed minded. I want to understand the Church’s teaching on this issue as it is a very real issue for my family. I’m not there yet, but hopefully God will remove the scales so that I can clearly understand His will in this situation.