Discussion about ectopic pregnancies

[HomeschoolDad]

This doesn’t seem too ethical from a Catholic perspective even if it were possible. It makes me think of IVF except in this case you are allowing a baby to grow outside the women’s body after it may have been conceived naturally. I have heard that research and medicine has made it possible to donate or receive a working uterus for a woman who wants to have a biological child and for whatever reason is not able due to gynecological issues. That’s pretty fascinating. I believe it’s pretty new though

It does seem kind of Brave New World-like, but it is not wrong in and of itself (if it were, using the same logic, incubators would be immoral), and if the alternative were the death of the child, it would clearly be the “lesser of two evils”. Transplanting into another woman’s uterus, assuming such a thing were possible, would be more desirable (though not without its own risks).

It is kind of outlandish, though — “you’re pregnant and don’t want to be? — no worries! Just let us go in (possibly with a little laproscopic device), take the conceptus, hook it up to an artificial womb, and you go on your way, some lucky couple (or, conceivably — no pun intended — a single adoptive parent) gets a newborn baby, win-win for everyone, what’s not to like?”.

 

[kapp19]

It does seem kind of Brave New World -like, but it is not wrong in and of itself (if it were, using the same logic, incubators would be immoral), and if the alternative were the death of the child, it would clearly be the “lesser of two evils”. Transplanting into another woman’s uterus, assuming such a thing were possible, would be more desirable (though not without its own risks).

It is kind of outlandish, though — “you’re pregnant and don’t want to be? — no worries! Just let us go in (possibly with a little laproscopic device), take the conceptus, hook it up to an artificial womb, and you go on your way, some lucky couple (or, conceivably — no pun intended — a single adoptive parent) gets a newborn baby, win-win for everyone, what’s not to like?”.

It’s not clear it would be more desirable to “borrow” a real womb for gestation… it is less fitting in several ways… but it is certainly a complex discussion.

But I think you are very wrong about the “outlandishness” of the sales pitch you give. When that technology arrives, this will indeed be what happens - it just needs to be a cash cow.

Anyone wanting to dig into this whole issue in general should read the relevant passages from Denzinger (some statements made by the Holy Office regarding abortion), Fr. Connery’s book on abortion in the history of Catholic morals, and then Grisez et al. along with the flood of responses to his take on it, much of which can be found in various volumes of NCBQ.

Alright… I am taking my leave.

-K

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It’s not clear it would be more desirable to “borrow” a real womb for gestation… it is less fitting in several ways… but it is certainly a complex discussion.

But I think you are very wrong about the “outlandishness” of the sales pitch you give. When that technology arrives, this will indeed be what happens - it just needs to be a cash cow.

Anyone wanting to dig into this whole issue in general should read the relevant passages from Denzinger (some statements made by the Holy Office regarding abortion), Fr. Connery’s book on abortion in the history of Catholic morals, and then Grisez et al. along with the flood of responses to his take on it, much of which can be found in various volumes of NCBQ.

Alright… I am taking my leave.

I’m pretty much done with the subject myself. While I cannot think it would be per se immoral to use an artificial womb, neither could it be something to be undertaken without having to ask a lot of moral and ethical questions. I struggle to imagine how you would explain to a child or teenager “you weren’t really ‘born’, you see, your biological mother wanted to end her pregnancy, but was willing to allow you to live, so you were taken out of her, she went on her way to resume her life, and you were incubated for X months until you were developed enough, and your ‘birthday’ is the day you were disconnected from the incubator”. Now that does sound Brave New World-ish. Myself, I’d just be happy that my life was spared, and that the woman who didn’t want me allowed me to live, and to be adopted by a loving family, but others might not be that pragmatic, especially if they were very young when they were told.

I have to think there would also be a lot of serious medical considerations — how would the fetus be nourished? What could substitute for natural nutrients from the body of the pregnant mother? Could this cause health problems we can’t even fathom? Unless the fetus were kept in total darkness, could its vision be affected? Respiration? And so on.

At my leisure, I will indeed take a look at Dr Grisez’s writings on this subject. I have always found him very fascinating to read, and totally orthodox in the Faith.

 

[Anicette]

For example: One could not say it’s OK to abort an ectopic pregnancy because to not do so means I can’t have more children. No - that’s not a morally sound reason. The reason would need to rest on an argument for why the treatment is not a direct abortion - which is what the theologians debate. (See my prior post.)

your argument has nothing to do with the reality.
We don’t have to have a philosophical debate over ectopic pregnancy. It would kill the woman, so it has to be remooved.

Given it has to be remooved, yes, it is moral to make the less harmfull moral for fertility. The official medical instances agreed with it. So you basically agree with making body harm.

Of course we have to consider seriousely potential fertility. Remember that the IVF is immoral and adoption almost anavailable for the majority of couples.

 

[Anicette]

Well, after the debate after ectopic, we are now in another craziness, the artificial woomb.

1/

I think there’s a good compromise that can be struck between pro-choice and pro-lifers when the artificial womb becomes reality:

• If a pregnant woman chooses not to keep the baby, fine, nobody will stand in her way, BUT :
• The baby will be put in an artificial womb. And the pro-choice side should have no problem with this, because to them it’s “no more important than a wart that needs removing”

Disagree. Your choice will not be acceptable for neither camp.

The pro choice argument is that the woman have the right to decide over her body. You cannot impose her to put the extrated woomb in an artificial imcubator. Because what have been remooved of her body is not medical waste or nothing. The woman has the right to decide what to do with her “tissue” or even “embryo”.
the body cannot be alienated. For eg, blood donating cannot be morally forced (in democracy). And if happened, the donor has to give his written consented if the blood has to be used for medical research.

A foetus is more than blood or germinal sells. The woman who abort her baby don’t want him to be adopted by someone else. I am sure that a majority of them would be disgusted at the idea that some people “exploited” them as surrogate mother (unwillingly), then make them

grow their child artificially, without the relationship with the mother to finally give them to stranger. They would think it is not in the best interest of the child and his mental stability, nor their dignity.

I have heard that research and medicine has made it possible to donate or receive a working uterus for a woman who wants to have a biological child and for whatever reason is not able due to gynecological issues. That’s pretty fascinating. I believe it’s pretty new though

Yes new, but some babies had been already born this way in some countries including Sweeden.

Yet it would never been moral, because currently the children have to be conceived throught IVF only and freezed before knowing if the mother would be able to receive an uterus.
No natural conception is currently offered as a possiblity now.
So completely UN catholic.

It pose also an ethical problem. This donation is not a priority but a life choice and very difficult to extract/implant. For dead bodies, this donation is likely to be detrimental to real saving organs collecting. For older living ladies, it put their life at risk without saving another one.
And it is very very costy.
Is it ethical to vaste so many money and means for the only good for a woman to be pregnant?

 

[Anicette]

The relationships with the mother to be and her unborn child is definitely crucial and very natural.

The people who advocate to skipp pregnancy in order to save the child ignore it. What should be done is that the mother keep her child not give it to a machine.

Sorry but it is unconsistent with Catholic tradition.

 

[Pug]

I disagree with that stance. I think there’s a good compromise that can be struck between pro-choice and pro-lifers when the artificial womb becomes reality:

• If a pregnant woman chooses not to keep the baby, fine, nobody will stand in her way, BUT :
• The baby will be put in an artificial womb. And the pro-choice side should have no problem with this, because to them it’s “no more important than a wart that needs removing”

I agree with you that it seems likely that some type of artificial womb might serve to help babies who are born prematurely or even babies who are ectopic (assuming they can be moved).

I am not so sure that the compromise you describe would work. The pro-choicer doesn’t have any motive to comply, unless they are the type who sees abortion as an evil. It might require that they wait until the baby is old enough for transfer or it might require a medical procedure instead of a chemical one. Without a strong motive, they would not choose those options. However, if the government gets desperate for population, as is forecast in some countries, there might be financial motive to carry the baby longer or to term.

 

[ReaderT]

The pro choice argument is that the woman have the right to decide over her body. You cannot impose her to put the extrated woomb in an artificial imcubator. Because what have been remooved of her body is not medical waste or nothing. The woman has the right to decide what to do with her “tissue” or even “embryo”.
the body cannot be alienated. For eg, blood donating cannot be morally forced (in democracy). And if happened, the donor has to give his written consented if the blood has to be used for medical research.

My point was - if (as the pro-choice side argues) the unborn baby deserves no more consideration than a wart or a mole, then it will be strange if they care what happens to it. Do they ask for their moles back when the doctor removes them? No… So they should show the same lack of concern here, or else they aren’t being entirely truthful.

without the relationship with the mother to finally give them to stranger.

Well, if they are willing to get rid of the baby, then they are clearly giving up their guardianship.

The pro-choicer doesn’t have any motive to comply, unless they are the type who sees abortion as an evil.

They’re not being asked to comply. Pro-choice side argues (in the US) that the Baby is nothing more than a “clump of cells” or “medical waste”. Well then, if that’s what they believe, we’ll remove it for them, but like any other medical waste (moles, warts, tumors, etc.) they don’t get to decide what happens with it (the artificial womb).

 

[Rau]

your argument has nothing to do with the reality.

Your argument rejects catholic moral principles.

It would kill the woman, so it has to be remooved.

There are two patients and each must be cared for as well as possible. Direct abortion is impermissible under catholic moral principles.

Given it has to be remooved, yes, it is moral to make the less harmfull moral for fertility.

Subject to the above restriction, it is acceptable to do the minimum harm to fertility.

The official medical instances agreed with it.

I was not aware the debate was about acceptable medical practice. I thought it was about acceptable moral practice.

Remember that the IVF is immoral

You accept IVF Is immoral, but not direct abortion?

 

[drjsp]

Crazy rare doesn’t negate a hypothetical. I take issue with your characterization “A procedure to save a young woman’s life, that absolutely requires the sacrifice of a fetus”. It is much better to say it is a matter of double effect, which has been posted earlier. I disagree with the use of the word “sacrifice”, but I get your meaning.

The intent is to save the life of the mother, of course, and as an unintended, negative effect the life of the fetus is affected. Your comment about it not being an elective abortion procedure is spot on.

 

[Rau]

The intent is to save the life of the mother, of course, and as an unintended , negative effect the life of the fetus is affected.

Whether the act done has an unintended negative impact on the embryo is determined by what act is considered. The various available treatments are not judged equivalent in this regard (under catholic moral principles).

 

[Pug]

They’re not being asked to comply. Pro-choice side argues (in the US) that the Baby is nothing more than a “clump of cells” or “medical waste”. Well then, if that’s what they believe, we’ll remove it for them, but like any other medical waste (moles, warts, tumors, etc.) they don’t get to decide what happens with it (the artificial womb).

In those cases where the mother’s chosen procedure leaves the child living, yes, I suppose I see how one could try to offer to whisk the child away to safety after the abortion, provided there is no cooperation or scandal, etc. But most abortions aren’t survivable.

You are not talking about removing the child yourself from the womb.

 

[Anicette]

Your objections are dishonest.

You have no right to said that I reject Catholic moral principles, as it is false. You even admitted there is no official stance on the matter.

And you have no right to said that I don’t reject abortion.

Moral practice cannot be separated from acceptable medical practice.

Subject to the above restriction, it is acceptable to do the minimum harm to fertility.

No. It is a duty, medically and morally to try to do the mininum harm as possible.

 

[Anicette]

My point was - if (as the pro-choice side argues) the unborn baby deserves no more consideration than a wart or a mole, then it will be strange if they care what happens to it. Do they ask for their moles back when the doctor removes them? No… So they should show the same lack of concern here, or else they aren’t being entirely truthful.

The other side, the pro choice people would not agree with that.
First a baby will be delivered from the artificial woomb. So the mother would become one against her wish. Even if she chooses to give the baby for an adoption, she would have to live with the fact that her aborted baby had been put against her will in an artificial machine, will likely be traumatised by all around his gestation and abandonment and be hauted by the fact he may try to find her and maybe be angry with her for any medical and psychological issues (that are likely given his gestation…).

Until a baby is born nobody will said it is still a medical wart.

 

[Rau]

your objections are dishonest.

You have no right to said that I reject Catholic moral principles, as it is false.

Please point our any lack of honesty on my part?

You even admitted there is no official stance on the matter.

Did you see Post #83? The US Bishops have provided guidance and I attached their Ethical Directions document.

Moral practice cannot be separated from acceptable medical practice.

I disagree entirely. Why would you assume that medical practice aligns with (Catholic) moral principles? Eg. IVF is acceptable medical practice, considered to be a great gift even. Yet catholic morality rejects it as wrong.

No. It is a duty, medically and morally to try to do the mininum harm as possible.

Of course, taking account of all the patients. Catholic principles hold that the embryo cannot be directly killed (which is surely to DO harm), and so any procedure that does that is unacceptable. Do you agree?

 

[Rau]

We don’t have to have a philosophical debate over ectopic pregnancy. It would kill the woman, so it has to be remooved.

Given it has to be remooved, yes, it is moral to make the less harmfull moral for fertility. The official medical instances agreed with it. So you basically agree with making body harm.

Of course we have to consider seriousely potential fertility. Remember that the IVF is immoral and adoption almost anavailable for the majority of couples.

The above was your position. When you advocate the “least harmful” approach, you consider only the woman. Catholic moral principles do NOT permit a procedure which directly kills the embryo - yet I understand you to be saying that is fine because if minimises harm (to the mother). If I am misunderstanding you, please clarify.

 

[drjsp]

Catholic moral principles do NOT permit a procedure which directly kills the embryo

Perhaps it is better to substitute “intentionally” instead of “directly”. Removing an ectopic embryo could be said to directly lead to the death of that embryo (at least in the present day where an artificial uterus does not yet exist). Same thing with treating a pregnant cancer patient using cytotoxic medications. Such drugs would directly lead to the death of the embryo, although not intentionally.

The notion of double effect covers a lot of these scenarios.

 

[QContinuum]

Yes, methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug. It works by targeting fast dividing cells. If it acceptable to use it in cancer cases where fast dividing cells are threatening a woman’s life, I am unsure of why it’s unacceptable in stopping the lethal threat of a trophoblast in her Fallopian tube. A trophoblast is distinct from the embryo.

 

[drjsp]

I am unsure of why it’s unacceptable in stopping the lethal threat of a trophoblast in her Fallopian tube. A trophoblast is distinct from the embryo.

It has to do with the theology that human life begins at conception. Regardless of the stage of life, purposely terminating innocent human life is immoral (situations of double effect excepted).

 

[QContinuum]

That does not answer my question. The trophoblast is distinct from the embryo. The medication is not targeting the embryo, but the lining of cells that are directly threatening the woman’s life. Of course, taking out the trophoblast removes the embryo’s life support. But so does removing the tube.