Abortion and hydatidiform mole

  • Thread starter Thread starter SaintNobody
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SaintNobody

Guest
Question: is it ever acceptable to terminate a partial molar pregnancy?

My hunch is that it’s a case-by-case situation as there may be a human life present, but I’m not 100% sure.

What say you?
 
Perhaps you could explain what molar pregnancies are and the different types.
 
According to Wikipedia, hydatidiform moles are caused by inviable (abnormal) eggs implanting in the uteral layers, rendering a previous viable, normal pregnancy abnormal. Usually the abnormal egg has no chromosomes and it gets the chromosomes form a spermium and undergoes chromosome duplication.
At conception, the “egg” now has a soul. It got implanted in the uterus… but then an abnormal one comes, and turns the pregnancy into an abnormal process which can turn into cancer.
We should invent a protection against moles, because they kill innocent human beings. The protection should include a ban on abortion, as according to Wikipedia, there is a score 1 risk of hydatidinoma (hydatid + carcinoma) in womens having an abortion. Plus, antecedent molar pregnancies can cause this kind of cancer.
 
A hydatidiform mole is gestational trophoblastic disease were the is an abnormal growth of placental type tissue. This growth could be due to trophoblastic disease, benign or malignant in nature. Leaving a hydatidiform mole with out medical treatment may cause the woman to hemorrhage, develop toxemia in pregnancy, develop a trophoblastic embolism, infection, malignancy…

A hydatidiform mole and co-existent fetus can occur and is best to discuss options and risk with a medical practitioner. Close surveillance of the pregnancy is a must, to detect potential early signs of maternal and fetal complications.

It may be really helpful to discuss this with your priest or spiritual director for guidance.
 
Medical advice can’t be given on these forums. But moral discussion, of course can.

This sounds similar to the problem of ectopic pregnancy. If there is a condition in which an abnormal growth inside the uterous of a pregnant woman is a threat to the life of the mother and child, it isn’t wrong to take medical steps necessary to try to save one or both of them. Even if it is reasonably foreseable that removing the life threatening mass will also kill the unborn child, that may be a permissible outcome if the “do nothing” option is likely to kill them both. You just can’t INTENTIONALLY kill the unborn child as a means to saving the mother. See the difference? It’s subtle, but real. And of course, you always have to exhaust other options before even considering something with such a tragic side effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top