Congressman says abortions never necessary to save life of mother

[NeedImprovement]

I’m afraid, like Luigi Daniele, I don’t see the logic either.

In 1998 my country was already killing 2,000 babies a week in the womb ; the number is 3,700 slain in the womb every day in the USA .This has very little to do with saving the life of the mother . It is , apparently for the sake of “convenience.”

My country has no more laws protecting the life of the unborn - all that has done is add to the slaughter. So “why not make it legal” doesn’t fly either.

There are approximately 42 million children slain in the wombs of their mothers each year - the equivalent of the entire population(s) of a country being annihilated.

Reality check : They’re getting away with it so it must be “legal” already.

I see very little practicality or logic in the previous post. Maybe I’m missing something . . .

 

[TEPO]

I’m afraid, like Luigi Daniele, I don’t see the logic either.

In 1998 my country was already killing 2,000 babies a week in the womb ; the number is 3,700 slain in the womb every day in the USA .This has very little to do with saving the life of the mother . It is , apparently for the sake of “convenience.”

My country has no more laws protecting the life of the unborn - all that has done is add to the slaughter. So “why not make it legal” doesn’t fly either.

There are approximately 42 million children slain in the wombs of their mothers each year - the equivalent of the entire population(s) of a country being annihilated.

Reality check : They’re getting away with it so it must be “legal” already.

I see very little practicality or logic in the previous post. Maybe I’m missing something . . .

I believe Kevin was suggesting that there needs to be compromise on both sides. The pro life crowd needs to understand that abortions are necessary in cases where the mothers life is in jeapordy (which is only in that one case).

The pro choice crowd needs to fess-up to the fact that therapeutic abortions are unacceptable, but that all those gazillions (wink-wink) of cases of mothers who will die if they give birth should still be able to have that done legally… (again winkidy-wink )

…then we can actually start focusing on cures and solutions again, like it was before abortion became the big ‘hot topic’.

 

[Kevin_B]

Yes, sorry if I was not clear. I was suggesting that only abortions which are necessary to save the life of the mother be made legal. I am sorry if you thought I was suggesting all abortions be made legal, since that is as far from my actual belief as possible.

I simply said, since abortions which are necessary to save the mother are incredibly rare if they exist at all, nothing would be lost by making them legal.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Thanks for clarifying.

My point is that they are legal almost everywhere. The principle of double effect is commonly understood in medical ethics the world over.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Several schools of thought exist as far as labeling/defining a surgical procedure needed to validly save the life of the mother which has the tragic double effect of the loss of the life of the child she is carrying.

According to the (EWTN ; ZENIT) article linked by Kenny Kamel’s sig , those medical experts who led the symposium say the double effect in question regarding ectopic pregnancies shouldn’t be termed an “abortion” because it confuses the issue. Furthermore, the protagonists of abortion attempt to use that case as cause for justification :

O’Dwyer said that attempts were being made to confuse legitimate medical treatment with abortion.

“Irish Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have previously pointed out that treatment for conditions such as ectopic pregnancy are not considered abortion by doctors, yet misinformation in regard to this abounds in public debate.”

So in this sense , if we just go with the definitions of the medical experts from the symposium , some of the logic gets lost, in that the most recent posts were still referring to this procedure as “abortion” , while the medical experts said :tsktsk: .

And of course, the article went on to precisely mirror the comments of the congressman which are the topic of this thread :

. . . We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.
. . .
“The symposium clarifies that direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a woman, and that’s good news for mothers and their babies,” said Professor O’Dwyer.

The professor’s comments allude to the difference recognized in Christian morality between a direct abortion, and the unintended though foreseen death of the child as a secondary consequence of certain treatments.

Dr Eoghan de Faoite of the organizing committee for the symposium said that the research presented provided clear evidence that best practice medical care for pregnant women does not involve abortion.

“It was fascinating to learn about new therapies involving the safe delivery of chemotherapy during pregnancy and the exciting field of in-utero fetal surgery” he said. “When discussing matters of pregnancy and medicine it is vital that the voices of the real experts, those that actually care for pregnant women, be heard.”

“This Symposium puts an end to the false argument that Ireland needs abortion to treat women, and it was encouraging to hear the international speakers commend Ireland’s high standards of maternal healthcare and low rates of maternal mortality,” he added.

“The Dublin Declaration stating that abortion is not medically necessary was a statement of fact agreed by medical experts and reflecting best medical practice in maternal healthcare,” stated the medical advisor to the Life Institute, Dr Seán Ó Domhnaill.

“This is a globally significant outcome, which shows abortion has no place in treating women and their unborn children,” he affirmed.

.

As far as defining terms goes, one could find some middle ground. But ultimately, what those doctors are saying is to differentiate between what Father John Hardon , S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary , refers to as *direct abortion *(deliberate/intentional) and indirect abortion :

ABORTION. In Catholic morality, abortion is either direct (induced) or indirect. Direct abortion is any destruction of the product of human conception, whether before or after implantation in the womb. A direct abortion is one that is intended either as an end in itself or as a means to an end. As a willful attack on unborn human life, no matter what the motive, direct abortion is always a grave objective evil.
Indirect abortion is the foreseen but merely permitted evacuation of a fetus which cannot survive outside the womb. The evacuation is not the intended or directly willed result, but the side effect, of some legitimate procedure. As such it is morally allowable.

The essential sinfulness of direct abortion consists in the homicidal intent to kill innocent life. This factor places the controverted question as to precisely when human life begins, outside the ambit of the moral issue; as it also makes the now commonly held Catholic position that human life begins at conception equally outside the heart of the Church’s teaching about the grave sinfulness of direct abortion.
Abortion was condemned by the Church since apostolic times. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, composed before A.D. 100, told the faithful “You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child” (II,2). Direct abortion and infanticide were from the beginning placed on the same level of malice.

Hundreds of ecclesiastical documents from the first century through the present testify to the same moral doctrine, with such nuances as time, place, and circumstances indicated. The Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception,” so that “abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, IV, 51). Pope Paul VI confirmed this teaching in 1974. “Respect for human life,” he wrote, “is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother. It is rather the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.” Consequently, “divine law and natural reason exclude all right to the direct killing of an innocent human being” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, III, 12). (Etym. Latin abortivus, born prematurely, abortive; from aboriri, to miscarry.)

 

[NeedImprovement]

Abortion is never a laughing matter – it’s something we need to all take seriously as Catholics and as human beings. Neither does it ever become a “cold” issue as long as children are being intentionally slain in their mothers’ wombs. Whatever solution one may wish to suggest (tongue in cheek or not), it won’t bear any fruit at all without the power of prayer.

Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta called abortion “the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today.” To be more fully aware of the importance/power of prayer – our prayer, as a weapon in the fight against abortion , we need to understand that (direct/deliberate) abortion is demonic in its nature. Doubtless some of us do or will wrestle with that one a little bit, but this truth does not necessarily imply that parents who abort, or even abortionists are demonically possessed.

From: Demonic Abortion
radiantcross.org/Right-To-Life/2010/08/05/demonic-abortion/

Now it is time to focus on the fundamental nature of abortion. Abortion is demonic. This is a simple statement of fact, but difficult, even for some pro-life Christians, to accept. This reluctance to label even the darkest of evils for what it is, is a by product of our country’s descent into secularism and moral relativity, and one of Satan’s most successful snares.

In order to raise the consciousness of our Christian nation over the true evil we face under the auspices of Roe v Wade, Reverend Thomas Euteneuer, of Human Life International, has published a new book which lays out in no uncertain terms the Satanic origins and nature of abortion. Demonic Abortion.

The title will send feminists into fits of apoplexy, but in no way does Father Euteneuer assert that all women who abort their children, or even abortionists themselves, are demonically possessed or act as agents of the devil. While the book does detail cases of true demonic possession involving abortion, most women who undergo abortions have been misled by radical feminism, the abortion industry and their brought and paid for politicians. And most abortionists are simply motivated by the sin of greed.

From :Bishop Baker’s prayer for our President and Public Officials

al007italia.blogspot.ca/2009/02/bishop-bakers-prayer-for-our-president.html

Bishop Robert J. Baker, Diocese of Birmingham, was on EWTN’s The World Over last night talking about the recent events involving Pelosi & her visit to the Pope. He had some strong things to say about the whole abortion issue. He made it very clear that what we are battling is demonic in its origin. & that our 1st weapon needs to be prayer.

Father Hardon offers keen insights into some of the mechanics that are going on when we are seduced by temptation. Here are several objective pointers on what happens in this assault on our soul :

From :The Strategy of the Devil In Demonic Temptations
therealpresence.org/archives/Demonology/Demonology_001.htm

There is one more device of the father of lies that is so important, it is an underlying theme of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical The Splendor of the Truth. This is more than a device or even just a tactic. It is a fundamental premise of demonic strategy. As the Holy father explains, millions of people in the modern world have been deceived into disclaiming that there is such a thing as an inherently or intrinsically evil action. Nothing that a man does is ever evil by itself. It is only the circumstances, or the motives or the situation in which people do things which determine the morality of their conduct. Once people accept this principle, there is nothing which two thousand years of Christianity have taught, are still sins. Why not? Because there are now so many, how well I know, professedly Christian moralists in professedly Catholic universities and seminaries, who teach that abortion, or contraception, or euthanasia, or adultery are not sinful.

Clearly only the devil could have invented such malevolent theories. Yet they have penetrated academic circles that are shaking some parts of the Christian world to its foundation.

. . . The evil spirit seduces the mind by making error appealing . . .

. . . The evil spirit tries to seduce not only the human mind but also the human will. He entices our wills by releasing our passions. He wants to arouse the passions of the flesh and, what is less obvious, the passions of the soul. Why should he want to do this? What connection is there between passion and sin? The connection is that of cause and effect. Sin always leaves its mark on the sinner. It is like throwing a bottle of nitric acid into a person’s face and burning out his eyes. Every sin we commit weakens our powers of reason and intelligent perception. The more serious the sin and the more often committed, the greater is this induced darkening of man’s most precious possession, which makes him most like God, his ability to think. Sinners do not think, they emote, and then write learned volumes defending their irrationality.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I believe Kevin was suggesting that there needs to be compromise on both sides. The pro life crowd needs to understand that abortions are necessary in cases where the mothers life is in jeapordy (which is only in that one case).
The pro choice crowd needs to fess-up to the fact that therapeutic abortions are unacceptable, but that all those gazillions (wink-wink) of cases of mothers who will die if they give birth should still be able to have that done legally… (again winkidy-wink ) …then we can actually start focusing on cures and solutions again, like it was before abortion became the big ‘hot topic’.

In response, I would proffer considering several adjustments to accommodate the truth :

1. I encounter difficulty in the sophistry of - ergo using identical terminology as, those who wish to soft-sell abortion (not implying you in any way here). So I don’t say “pro choice crowd” myself. They’re abortionists, or pro-abortionists if people prefer. Elucidation can easily be provided by filling in the blank they leave in their label : The “choice” to do what ? . . . to which the inevitable answer is “the choice to deliberately kill the child in the womb.” “Choice” never actually enters into it, given that pro-life advocates could equally argue they support the “choice” to respect all human life.

The only real, legitimate “choices” present themselves in those anguish filled moments intimated to us by Susans Choice and UNITE MY WILL in posts #'s 27 and 28 respectively.

Although the term “therapeutic abortion” has been successfully coined by the protagonists of deliberate abortion to connote deliberate/direct abortion, I consider it to be an oxymoron ; since therapeutics is that branch of medicine dealing with disease . Pregnancy is not a disease.

The free medical dictionary defines therapeutic as:

“tending to overcome disease and promote recovery” ; or again
“having or exhibiting healing powers”.

When’s the last time someone completely “recovered” from an abortion or was “healed” by or from an abortion ? There are such people as abortion survivors, but that’s different. Each survivor of abortion is the “dreaded complication” to an abortionist, and they really do drive home the message of the nature of abortion ; as did Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Some of their stories can be read at this link :
realchoice.0catch.com/dreadcomplication.htm

1. The classification manner of the demographic in the quote below doesn’t really provide too accurate a reflection in several respects.

. . . The pro life crowd needs to understand that abortions are necessary in cases where the mothers life is in jeapordy (which is only in that one case).
The pro choice crowd needs to fess-up to the fact that therapeutic abortions are unacceptable, but that all those gazillions (wink-wink) of cases of mothers who will die if they give birth should still be able to have that done legally… (again winkidy-wink )

In general, the “pro life crowd” referred to above would have to necessarily exclude Catholics since Catholic teaching already concedes the necessity that a fetus might be lost as a side effect (principle of double effect) in a legitimate procedure. As Father Hardon says, as such it is morally allowable. Who ever heard of a comprehensive pro-life group without Catholics ? We can proceed to add on to that non-total the medical experts at the symposium who agree that “abortion has no place in treating women and their unborn children," since although they are considered “pro-life” , they also still acquiesce to that same necessity.

Thus it will become gradually even more difficult to assess the size or identity/makeup of the so called “pro life crowd” as posited in the quote - ultimately confusing *who exactly is supposed to “compromise” what * according to the proposition .

 

[NeedImprovement]

Statistics on a country by country basis re abortion legislation , also appear to substantiate that there aren’t too many places left on this planet where the principle of double effect would not already apply to save the life of an expectant mother.
According to Worldwide Abortion Legislation by Wm. Robert Johnston updated in 2011 and primarily based on UN-reported abortion policy in 2007 :

johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp336al.html

Out of the UN reviewing193 countries (in 2007) , they report that six countries banned abortion in all circumstances. However, the study couldn’t provide a statistic of what percentage of the world’s population were affected by that specific legislation of a complete ban .

Instead, the statistic grouped *abortion being banned altogether * together with abortion being permitted only to save the mother’s life . They say that, combined, those two types of legislation affect 17.3% of the world’s population . They also say that some countries which ban abortion altogether

. . . make exceptions to save the life of the mother /

. . . an assertion which is also confirmed by The Center For Reproductive Rights (unh! – another oxymoron): uch:

The most restrictive laws are those that either permit abortion only to save a woman’s life or ban the procedure entirely. Many countries in this category . . . explicitly permit abortion when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life. In other countries, laws that make no explicit exception are generally interpreted to permit abortion under life-threatening circumstances on the grounds of “necessity.” Such an exception may also be recognized in national norms of medical ethics.

Oddly enough, contrary to one argument given among repeated sighs on the first two pages of this thread that abortion has a positive effect on the MMR ( pregnancy-related maternal mortality rate) : It is actually the country which currently has the most restrictive abortion legislation – Chile , which , with exceptionally good data through statistics - “50 years of official records from Chile’s National Institute of Statistics, 1957 to 2007” is challenging the ‘safe abortion’ myth.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=119559

lifesitenews.com/news/new-chile-study-challenges-the-safe-abortion-myth

Go figure !

 

[SamH]

If abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother, why not make them legal? It seems like an easy compromise to make: the pro-choice crowd will be happy to have gained a victory, while we well be happy knowing it will never happen, so we aren’t actually supporting any abortions.

It’s sad that partisanship has eroded our ability to make logical decisions and compromise.

.

Compromise on murder?

 

[StevenFrancis]

And the congressman is right. Give him a cookie and a gold star on his homework.

Peace,

Steven

 

[TEPO]

And the congressman is right. Give him a cookie and a gold star on his homework.

Peace,

Steven

So what do we do when the baby begins to grow in the Fallopian tube and not in the womb (which does happen somewhat frequently)…?

The greatest good in that situation would be to manually remove the baby from the tube… But that baby could not naturally survive, and we don’t have the technology to keep the baby alive --why don’t we I wonder, and why is there no interest in doing so? Maybe because many people now view “fetuses” as worthless? Unfortunately, I think there might be some truth in that.

 

[TEPO]

If there were an interest in saving the lives of “fetuses” who could not otherwise survive in their own natural womb, would there then become a greater respect for the unborn? I think yes.

 

[Kevin_B]

I would take a ban on all abortions but those involving rape, incest and direct threat to the mother’s life in a minute. I would mourn for the children lost and fight to have those abortions banned also but i would praise the lord for the millions saved.

This may be one of the most intelligent quotes I have ever read on these forums. Imagine how long ago we could have outlawed abortion if we would have agreed to these exceptions.

Compromise on murder?

Would you rather compromise, and make 99% of abortions illegal, or refuse to compromise, and keep 100% of them legal?

You can be an idealist If you want. I’ll concentrate on actually saving lives. Let me know if you decide to help.

 

[seekerz]

news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/congressman-says-abortions-never-necessary-save-life-mother-175130900–election.html

Is that congressman a trained ob/gyn? If not, he should not be peddling medical advice.

Abortion (the indirect type of course) is obviously necessary in certain pregnancies, otherwise we Catholics would not have ethics boards to deal with these types of issues.

 

[seekerz]

So what do we do when the baby begins to grow in the Fallopian tube and not in the womb (which does happen somewhat frequently)…?

The greatest good in that situation would be to manually remove the baby from the tube… But that baby could not naturally survive, and we don’t have the technology to keep the baby alive --why don’t we I wonder, and why is there no interest in doing so? Maybe because many people now view “fetuses” as worthless? Unfortunately, I think there might be some truth in that.

The first part of your post is very pertinent and explains why the congressman and those who agree with him are perhaps not thinking too deeply about real life medical situations. As to the lack of technology, your assumptions (if I’m reading them clearly) are way off base.

1. The mistaken assumption common on the pro-life side of the argument, that those who are not against abortion do not value ANY life. IMO, that is just not true. People may be gravely wrong on an issue (in this case the morality of abortion) and still be on the right side of other issues (e.g. professionals who dedicate their whole lives to SAVING lives of all ages).

It would be easy if we could draw a red line between those two groups, but unfortunately, in the real world that’s just not how it works. A person can be pro-choice and can still dedicate themselves (40, 60 or more hours a week at the expense of family life, leisure and sleep) to saving the lives of babies. That’s not a matter of opinion, that is the real, complex world we live in.

1. Your comment does not begin to reflect the complexity of human development in the womb. The womb is not just a space where a baby is enclosed while it grows. The link between a mother and her baby is so intimate and intricate that I highly doubt it could EVER be replicated by technology - though I would be happy to be proven wrong. Even if an artificial womb could be invented, one that might accommodate the development of a less than 1 inch long baby lies firmly in the realm of high level science fiction.

Scientists cannot even fully explain basics like how labor starts or what goes wrong when pregnancy complications arise…i.e. they haven’t even fully figured out the God-given natural processes associated with pregnancy and childbirth which are seen EVERYDAY. How reasonable is it to expect them to be able to re-create those processes through technology?

 

[seekerz]

If there were an interest in saving the lives of “fetuses” who could not otherwise survive in their own natural womb, would there then become a greater respect for the unborn? I think yes.

How do you know that interest does not exist? Just because something remains impossible doesn’t mean people haven’t tried - it may simply mean that science is woefully inadequate in mimicking the creative powers of God.

 

[StevenFrancis]

So what do we do when the baby begins to grow in the Fallopian tube and not in the womb (which does happen somewhat frequently)…?

The greatest good in that situation would be to manually remove the baby from the tube… But that baby could not naturally survive, and we don’t have the technology to keep the baby alive --why don’t we I wonder, and why is there no interest in doing so? Maybe because many people now view “fetuses” as worthless? Unfortunately, I think there might be some truth in that.

I haven’t studied this particular scenario that well. I will now. As to how often in ratio this occurs etc. I do know that it is moral to save a woman’s life, if by secondary effect a baby may die, so long as there is no intent on any parties part to specifically kill the baby. Such as a tumor say in the uterus that must come out before the baby is born in order to save the mother’s life, (this is exceptionally rare). You could do the surgery on the mother, taking all possible precautions to protect the baby while doing so. If as a consequence of the surgery, the baby died, but not through intentional neglect or action of the doctors etc., then this would not even fit the definition of abortion. I think they call this type of scenario “double effect”.
I’m sure falopian tubal pregnancy has been covered by bioethicists as well. I just haven’t personally read or studied that case. I would think the same moral and ethical principles apply. You do whatever procedure is required, without any intended harm to the baby, taking reasonable precautions to preserve life. Do you know, for instance if a baby removed from a tube, can be properly implanted in the uterus in order to complete gestation? If this happens enough to be studied, it would be an excellent research for an obstetrics medical researcher. Maybe it’s already done. Interesting question though.
The primary idea though, is that we are not murdering. That we are always cognizant of the existence of human life from conception to natural death. It is all one continuous cycle for human beings. There is no less intrinsic value in a baby caught in a tube, then a 30 year old man, or an 80 year old woman. They are all human beings living out the part of their cycle to which they have attained. It is not up to mankind to intentionally break that cycle with the intent of ending life. Not the Mother’s OR the baby. All efforts in the medical arena should be applied to preserve and save life for human beings at any part of this cycle. And yes, regardless of the circumstances, no matter how ugly, of conception.

Peace,

Steven

 

[TEPO]

1. The mistaken assumption common on the pro-life side of the argument, that those who are not against abortion do not value ANY life. IMO, that is just not true. People may be gravely wrong on an issue (in this case the morality of abortion) and still be on the right side of other issues (e.g. professionals who dedicate their whole lives to SAVING lives of all ages).

It would be easy if we could draw a red line between those two groups, but unfortunately, in the real world that’s just not how it works. A person can be pro-choice and can still dedicate themselves (40, 60 or more hours a week at the expense of family life, leisure and sleep) to saving the lives of babies. That’s not a matter of opinion, that is the real, complex world we live in.

I said “there might be some truth in that”… Which means I don’t think it’s true in all cases for everyone who considers themselves “pro-choice”. What I do mean is that if there are no and have never been any studies that have ever taken place on whether or not there is a chance of creating an artificial womb – then that should be a clear indication on the level of importance our society places on the unborn.

If you could show me that these studies have taken place since the passing of abortion laws then I’ll admit that I’m full of bologna. But it would be impossible for me to prove that something hasn’t happened, so the proof is on you.

…but I will tell you that I’ve never heard of it.

1. Your comment does not begin to reflect the complexity of human development in the womb. The womb is not just a space where a baby is enclosed while it grows. The link between a mother and her baby is so intimate and intricate that I highly doubt it could EVER be replicated by technology - though I would be happy to be proven wrong. Even if an artificial womb could be invented, one that might accommodate the development of a less than 1 inch long baby lies firmly in the realm of high level science fiction.

Scientists cannot even fully explain basics like how labor starts or what goes wrong when pregnancy complications arise…i.e. they haven’t even fully figured out the God-given natural processes associated with pregnancy and childbirth which are seen EVERYDAY. How reasonable is it to expect them to be able to re-create those processes through technology?

Why would they need to know any of that? All fetuses already have their own DNA sequence so all that’s missing is a way to reattach the ambilical cord to the artificial womb. All that a womb is made of is amniotic fluid. The newly attached cord would need to be synchronized with whatever levels of vitamins, minerals, oxygen, etc., that would normally be available for the baby to simply ‘continue growing’ as it normally would through the different stages of a normal pregnancy.

But I’m not saying its possible… I’m just saying that if such studies and tests were to take place it would be interesting to see people’s reactions on whether they would support it or not. Likewise if one were created, I wonder if people would develop a new respect for the unborn.

Just a thought -maybe I’m taking it too far… Again… . (I always take everything too far)

 

[TEPO]

The primary idea though, is that we are not murdering. That we are always cognizant of the existence of human life from conception to natural death. It is all one continuous cycle for human beings. There is no less intrinsic value in a baby caught in a tube, then a 30 year old man, or an 80 year old woman. They are all human beings living out the part of their cycle to which they have attained. It is not up to mankind to intentionally break that cycle with the intent of ending life. Not the Mother’s OR the baby. All efforts in the medical arena should be applied to preserve and save life for human beings at any part of this cycle. And yes, regardless of the circumstances, no matter how ugly, of conception.

Peace,

Steven

Yes, I agree with all this, including: “regardless of the circumstances, no matter how ugly, of conception”.

 

[seekerz]

I said “there might be some truth in that”… Which means I don’t think it’s true in all cases for everyone who considers themselves “pro-choice”. What I do mean is that if there are no and have never been any studies that have ever taken place on whether or not there is a chance of creating an artificial womb – then that should be a clear indication on the level of importance our society places on the unborn.

If you could show me that these studies have taken place since the passing of abortion laws then I’ll admit that I’m full of bologna. But it would be impossible for me to prove that something hasn’t happened, so the proof is on you.

…but I will tell you that I’ve never heard of it.

Why would they need to know any of that? All fetuses already have their own DNA sequence so all that’s missing is a way to reattach the ambilical cord to the artificial womb. All that a womb is made of is amniotic fluid. The newly attached cord would need to be synchronized with whatever levels of vitamins, minerals, oxygen, etc., that would normally be available for the baby to simply ‘continue growing’ as it normally would through the different stages of a normal pregnancy.

But I’m not saying its possible… I’m just saying that if such studies and tests were to take place it would be interesting to see people’s reactions on whether they would support it or not. Likewise if one were created, I wonder if people would develop a new respect for the unborn.

Just a thought -maybe I’m taking it too far… Again… . (I always take everything too far)

Ah, I was trying to explain why it’s not simply a matter of reattaching an umbilical cord and providing nutrients. The placenta is this complex, wonderful, unique organ whose structure and function would need to be replicated in any such artificial womb; the mother and baby both contribute to its formation. In other words, the woman is not simply a vessel, she is an active participant in every process by which a 2 cells become a baby; some of the very earliest stages have been successfully replicated outside the womb but beyond those all efforts I’m aware of are highly experimental and largely carried out in animals.

Here’s a link. To summarize the article, various methods have been tried with limited success. The outcome: short term extra-uterine survival (measured in weeks), phenomenal expense and, from what I can tell, usable only in premature fetuses (fairly developed but not close enough to term). From what I have read, the idea of an artificial womb for 1-2 inch long embryos would be at least several light years away.

I’m not sure how relevant any of this would be to treatment of ectopic pregnancy from a Catholic standpoint, since present teaching does not allow for the pregnancy to be removed from the tube. How then would it get into an experimental ‘womb’ to see if it could survive?