Ectopic Pregnancy - analogy

[BlindSheep]

Imagine you are a mountain climber, climbing with a buddy. There is a rope attached to your backpack, connecting the two of you. Suddenly, a falling rock hits your friend in the head, knocking him unconscious, and he falls. His weight causes you to lose your footing, and you end up dangling by one hand, with your buddy hanging unconscious from the rope attached to your backpack. You can’t pull yourself to safety with the extra weight, and there is no one around to help. It is just a matter of time until you lose your grip and both fall to your deaths, and there is no way for you to save your friend. Your backpack happens to contain valuable and irreplaceable items. What do you do?

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

Imagine you are a mountain climber, climbing with a buddy. There is a rope attached to your backpack, connecting the two of you. Suddenly, a falling rock hits your friend in the head, knocking him unconscious, and he falls. His weight causes you to lose your footing, and you end up dangling by one hand, with your buddy hanging unconscious from the rope attached to your backpack. You can’t pull yourself to safety with the extra weight, and there is no one around to help. It is just a matter of time until you lose your grip and both fall to your deaths, and there is no way for you to save your friend. Your backpack happens to contain valuable and irreplaceable items. What do you do?

First of all, this is a bad analogy for an ectopic pregnancy. Second, it is a stupid way to rock climb. You don’t attach anyone to a backpack when climbing. Third, you assume a lot here, like you have a choice between cutting the rope and cutting the backpack. Fourth, when rock climbing both you and your buddy have agreed to the risk and have placed each other in mortal danger by connecting each other in the manner described AND climbing at the same time.

If I was so stupid to do all this and I had the ability, I would cut the rope, as I am assuming I would have been equally as stupid to put all my gear only on the backpack and my only way off the rock would be to use the gear available. I think I would also be scarred for life for placing my buddy in danger and being the one to live.

In any case, I’m not answering this poll on the grounds it is not a good analogy with ectopic pregnancy. The child in an ectopic pregnancy is innocent, the climbers are not. The climbers placed themselves in a position of death, a faulty system placed the child’s life in danger. There is no parallel other than the death for one vs death for both, but the premise is so unequal that the comparison is flawed.

 

[BlindSheep]

yochumjy:

First of all, this is a bad analogy for an ectopic pregnancy. Second, it is a stupid way to rock climb. You don’t attach anyone to a backpack when climbing. Third, you assume a lot here, like you have a choice between cutting the rope and cutting the backpack. Fourth, when rock climbing both you and your buddy have agreed to the risk and have placed each other in mortal danger by connecting each other in the manner described AND climbing at the same time.

If I was so stupid to do all this and I had the ability, I would cut the rope, as I am assuming I would have been equally as stupid to put all my gear only on the backpack and my only way off the rock would be to use the gear available. I think I would also be scarred for life for placing my buddy in danger and being the one to live.

In any case, I’m not answering this poll on the grounds it is not a good analogy with ectopic pregnancy. The child in an ectopic pregnancy is innocent, the climbers are not. The climbers placed themselves in a position of death, a faulty system placed the child’s life in danger. There is no parallel other than the death for one vs death for both, but the premise is so unequal that the comparison is flawed.

It’s an analogy, not a lesson on how to rock climb.
The buddy “placing himself in danger” doesn’t have anything to do with the point of the analogy, which is the difference between “directly intended” killing and death occuring as an unintended side effect of an action which has an intent other than to kill. The “faulty system” is completely irrelevant, since some, but not all, ectopic pregnancies may be due to a faulty system, and even when this is the case, removing the tube would not be immediately necessary to save the mother’s life.
The tube has value and cannot be replaced. Losing a fallopian tube significantly reduces fertility, and would not be necessary in every case of ectopic pregnancy. Removing the tube in order to make the act seem more ‘indirect’ is as illogical as the mountain climber dropping the backpack. You missed the point. Just as the embryo is not an aggressor, but is unintentionally going to be the cause of the mother’s death, so is the unconscious friend going to be the cause of the mountain climber’s death - not through deliberate action, but by accident. It is still permissable to act to save one’s own life. Adding the fallopian tube/backpack to what is lost is not neccessary to make the act morally acceptable, since the intent of removing the embryo or cutting the rope is not to kill one person, but to save the other. Removing the embryo is no more directly killing than cutting the rope would be - it is not the same as stabbing the guy/direct abortion, because if it were possible for him to survive the fall, this would be the outcome you would desire, and if it were possible to re-implant the embryo in the uterus, this would be done in the ectopic pregnancy. It would be immoral, however, if the mother had the option of attempting to save the baby and chose not to.

 

[yochumjy]

Blind Sheep,

Since you came up with this analogy, I have a return one for you. Assuming that you are in the above situation and then cut the rope to save yourself (which I assume is your parallel to killing the child in the tube). Do you then find another buddy, put on a heavy backpack with unreplacable items and connect your buddy to the backpack and both simultaneously climb up the same rock climb in the same way you did when your first friend died? Do you chance it again, knowing what you know now?

Because, I assert that doing the same stupid thing over IS what you do, when you simply remove the child using surgery/methotrexate and then hope for the best in the next pregnancy

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

It’s an analogy, not a lesson on how to rock climb.

All analogies fall apart at some point, yours fall apart sooner than it should to make a point. Sorry.

BlindSheep:

The buddy “placing himself in danger” doesn’t have anything to do with the point of the analogy, which is the difference between “directly intended” killing and death occuring as an unintended side effect of an action which has an intent other than to kill.

Unfortunately, the buddy placing himself in danger is key. You know the risks when you do something dangerous as climbing. And you analogy is two people knowing putting themselves in danger. I’m sorry you don’t understand that.

BlindSheep:

The “faulty system” is completely irrelevant, since some, but not all, ectopic pregnancies may be due to a faulty system, and even when this is the case, removing the tube would not be immediately necessary to save the mother’s life.

Except that the faulty system created the life/death situation in the first place. If you ignore the fault then your are playing russian roulette with your next child. You are setting yourself up for another abortion. You can’t have an ectopic pregnancy without saying that there was a fault in the system, it is impossible.

BlindSheep:

The tube has value and cannot be replaced. Losing a fallopian tube significantly reduces fertility, and would not be necessary in every case of ectopic pregnancy. Removing the tube in order to make the act seem more ‘indirect’ is as illogical as the mountain climber dropping the backpack. You missed the point.

The value of the tube is irrelavant within the context of a direct abortion which is evil. And notice you say “would not be necessary in every case”. So, are you assuming there is a time to remove the tube, or do you still just believe that the blind giving of methotrexate is perfectly okay because it is (supposidly) best for the mother?

BlindSheep:

Just as the embryo is not an aggressor, but is unintentionally going to be the cause of the mother’s death, so is the unconscious friend going to be the cause of the mountain climber’s death - not through deliberate action, but by accident.

I agree the embryo is not the aggressor. But let’s look at how the mother will truly die. The tube, which only has the child because of a problem, which is probably with or around the tube, will burst. The bursting of the tube is the cause of the life threatening situation with the mother. (unless of course you can substantiate that a tube with absolutely nothing wrong with it can cause an ectopic pregnancy, which no one has to this point). So, to remove the threat to the mother’s life without directly targeting the baby’s life, you remove the tube. The tube will burst and cause the death of the mother, so you remove the cause of death. You continue to believe it is the problem of the child, yet the child ended up in the tube because there was a problem in the tube. Feel free to document with outside resources something that refutes there is any problem in the tube. The fact that there COULD be a future okay pregnancy, does not refute the fact that there can be a problem with the tube. My analogy with a bug in a computer program illustrates this, I believe.

Also in the rock climbers analogy, they both know and accept there is danger and conciously decide to continue. The child does not have a choice.

cont

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

It is still permissable to act to save one’s own life. Adding the fallopian tube/backpack to what is lost is not neccessary to make the act morally acceptable, since the intent of removing the embryo or cutting the rope is not to kill one person, but to save the other. Removing the embryo is no more directly killing than cutting the rope would be - it is not the same as stabbing the guy/direct abortion, because if it were possible for him to survive the fall, this would be the outcome you would desire, and if it were possible to re-implant the embryo in the uterus, this would be done in the ectopic pregnancy. It would be immoral, however, if the mother had the option of attempting to save the baby and chose not to.

I also posted in our other thread that intent and actions follow one another. According to the church, abortion is ALWAYS wrong. What you are ascribing to is abortion… the direct killing of a baby. This does not get covered under the principle of double effect, since your direct action is to remove the child.

If we only went by your description of intent, then any doctor could say that just carrying a baby to term will endanger the life of the woman by XX% (pick whatever) then you can abort. The percentage could be high, could be low, but doesn’t matter. Abortion is wrong. It is simple, concise, and the church has definatively spoken about it. The removal of the tube DOES count in the principle of double effect, since the rupture of the tube will kill the mother (note, not the child).

You say I’m splitting hairs, I realize this, I feel I am backing up my point of view completely.

 

[BlindSheep]

The problems you have with my analogy have nothing to do with the point. You and your friend could be climing to escape a flood - therefore, not taking unnecessary risks. The rope could have become accidentally tangled with your backpack, therefore there is no “stupid” act to place the blame on.
For that matter, what is the “stupid” thing a woman with an ectopic pregnancy has done, according to you? Are you saying getting pregnant is equivalent to frivolously risking one’s life? And why are you so sure that every ectopic pregnancy is due to some flaw in the woman’s anatomy? Seems to me like men are awfully quick to brand women’s reproductive organs as flawed, when that may or may not be the case. Unless you are arguing that every ectopic pregnancy is caused by a defective fallopian tube, or that it would be impossible for a doctot to tell whether a tube was flawed or not, your excuse for removing the tube doesn’t hold up. Perhaps something is wrong with the embryo. Smoking increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy - if this were the cause, quitting smoking, not removing the tube, would be the way to prevent recurrance. Sometimes these things happen for no other reason than chance. You can’t assume there is always a problem with the tube.
Secondly, I never advocated “killing the baby in the tube”, only removing the baby from the tube. There is a difference between simply taking the baby out and actually tearing apart or poisoning the baby with drugs. However, I see no difference, morally, between removinng the tube and removing only the baby - except that if the tube is heathly, removing it is mutilation. The health of the tube itself and the chance of recurrance is a separate issue, since this would vary in different cases. The question of whether a woman should take a chance of pregnancy when the baby has a low chance of survival is a moral dilemma in itself, but not the main issue here. The question I ask is: do you believe the mother has an obligation to have the tube removed *even if it is healthy, *rather than only removing the baby from the tube - and if so, why? The intent is the same - to save the mother’s life. Removing the baby(intact) is not directly killing it, that is to say, if the placenta is detached from the tube. This wouldn’t be the same thing as an abortion, which always involves directly killing the baby and is done with the intent of killing the baby. If the baby survived being removed from the tube, there would be rejoicing - but when a baby survives abortion, there are lawsuits. Clearly the intent is not the same.

 

[BlindSheep]

One more thing - I never said I thought it was okay to use drugs to kill the baby. I’m talking about surgically removing the baby vs. removing the tube with the baby in it.

 

[BlindSheep]

I repeat - not all ectopic pregnancies are caused by flaws in the fallopian tube.
From nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000895.htm

The administration of hormones, specifically estrogen and progesterone, can slow the normal movement of the fertilized egg through the tubal epithelium and result in implantation in the tube. Women who become pregnant despite using progesterone-only oral contraceptives have a 5-fold increase in the ectopic pregnancy rate.

Women who become pregnant despite using progesterone-bearing IUDs also have an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy rates for those who become pregnant despite non-medicated IUD are 5%, while the rate for medicated IUD users who become pregnant despite the device is 15%. Note that these rates only refer to percents of the tiny proportion of women who become pregnant while using these methods – they do not refer to women who have once used these methods and later become pregnant, or to the percent of women who become pregnant while using these methods.

The “morning after pill” is associated with a 10-fold increase in risk of this condition when its use fails to prevent pregnancy.

 

[BlindSheep]

However, ectopic pregnancies can rarely occur in the ovary, the abdomen, and in the lower portion of the uterus (the cervix).

What treatment would you recommend for a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy in the abdomen, since you feel removing only the baby is wrong?

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

The problems you have with my analogy have nothing to do with the point. You and your friend could be climing to escape a flood - therefore, not taking unnecessary risks. The rope could have become accidentally tangled with your backpack, therefore there is no “stupid” act to place the blame on.

We can play what if games all day long. Even if this isn’t due to a “stupid error”, it still does not fit. If you have to cut the rope on your buddy in the case of climbing away from a flood, then it is a terrible thing and it would still haunt me, and yes, again, I would have to let my buddy die. What I cut would be what I had to to keep me safe, backpack be d***ed. But the original problem did not occur due to the backpack.

You continuously ignore the original problem! The original problem was that the child was implanted in the fallopian tube due to a problem in the region of the fallopian tube. Unless you are drawing a parallel by having the backpack cause you to be in the flood zone at the wrong time, this isn’t a good analogy.

I’d have to return the analogy, and say, if the backback caused you to be in the floodzone at the wrong time, would you get another buddy and return to the floodzone. If so, you are putting your other buddy at risk also.

BlindSheep:

For that matter, what is the “stupid” thing a woman with an ectopic pregnancy has done, according to you? Are you saying getting pregnant is equivalent to frivolously risking one’s life? And why are you so sure that every ectopic pregnancy is due to some flaw in the woman’s anatomy?

Feeling touchy? I NEVER said that a woman with a ectopic pregnancy did something stupid. The stupid comment was reserved for your bad climbing analogy. Go back, read my post, and stop putting words in my mouth.

That being said, putting your next child at risk because you are only concerned with fertility is not a pure love attitude. As for every ectopic pregnancy being a flaw. Well, are you asserting that ectopic pregnancy is natural and normal, or is it the result of a problem? I say it is a result of a problem. And once you have surgery on a tube, you increase the chances of future ectopic pregnancies. I’ve posted links, you are welcome to investigate them…including Vern’s link, which says the same thing.

BlindSheep:

Seems to me like men are awfully quick to brand women’s reproductive organs as flawed, when that may or may not be the case. Unless you are arguing that every ectopic pregnancy is caused by a defective fallopian tube, or that it would be impossible for a doctot to tell whether a tube was flawed or not, your excuse for removing the tube doesn’t hold up. Perhaps something is wrong with the embryo. Smoking increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy - if this were the cause, quitting smoking, not removing the tube, would be the way to prevent recurrance. Sometimes these things happen for no other reason than chance. You can’t assume there is always a problem with the tube.

See above. BTW, does smoking just inhibit the development of the egg? I don’t know. You are of course just assuming there is nothing wrong with the tube, smoking or not. And from the links I’ve given, surgery on the tube (including previous ectopic pregnancy) Is listed in the causes. So, once you have one ectopic pregnancy, you could have another. I don’t actually believe that doctors know all the causes. They can and do draw conclusions based on risk factors, but since every smoker doesn’t have an ectopic pregnancy, I don’t know that we can say stopping smoking will solve the problem, esp. after surgery

cont

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

Secondly, I never advocated “killing the baby in the tube”, only removing the baby from the tube. There is a difference between simply taking the baby out and actually tearing apart or poisoning the baby with drugs.

About the drug…a big part of this discussion centered around the abortifacient drug that Vern advocates using. I’m sorry that I blindly lumped you in with him. Thank you for letting me know about that. Although, I still say that removing the baby and intentionally allowing them to die is still abortion and evil.

BlindSheep:

However, I see no difference, morally, between removinng the tube and removing only the baby - except that if the tube is heathly, removing it is mutilation. The health of the tube itself and the chance of recurrance is a separate issue, since this would vary in different cases. The question of whether a woman should take a chance of pregnancy when the baby has a low chance of survival is a moral dilemma in itself, but not the main issue here. The question I ask is: do you believe the mother has an obligation to have the tube removed *even if it is healthy, *rather than only removing the baby from the tube - and if so, why? The intent is the same - to save the mother’s life. Removing the baby(intact) is not directly killing it, that is to say, if the placenta is detached from the tube. This wouldn’t be the same thing as an abortion, which always involves directly killing the baby and is done with the intent of killing the baby. If the baby survived being removed from the tube, there would be rejoicing - but when a baby survives abortion, there are lawsuits. Clearly the intent is not the same.

Removing the baby means your intent is abortion. Abortion is evil. I don’t make the rules. BTW, are you saying in an ectopic pregnancy the placenta is not connected to the tube? And if you remove the baby intact and then throw them away, that is just as bad as poisioning them. If the baby was removed, the tube and surrounding area thoroughly checked and then the baby placed in the uterous and tied in. I would then begin to lean toward your view. As long as the tube is reconnected in such a way to lessen the risk of future ectopic, and all known causes of ectopic pregnancy were looked at and ruled out, I would say that indeed that would be the most morally acceptable thing to do. Anything less than that is russian roulette, from my meager knowledge and study. Please feel free to document that this normally occurs during a baby removal and let us go from there.

And your comment about lawsuits when abortions don’t survive do not fit in with this. There are self surving attitudes that would accept a baby under certain circumstances and abort them under others.

 

[feather]

BlindSheep:

Imagine you are a mountain climber, climbing with a buddy. There is a rope attached to your backpack, connecting the two of you. Suddenly, a falling rock hits your friend in the head, knocking him unconscious, and he falls. His weight causes you to lose your footing, and you end up dangling by one hand, with your buddy hanging unconscious from the rope attached to your backpack. You can’t pull yourself to safety with the extra weight, and there is no one around to help. It is just a matter of time until you lose your grip and both fall to your deaths, and there is no way for you to save your friend. Your backpack happens to contain valuable and irreplaceable items. What do you do?

I answered that I would hang on because I was answering the above not a pregnancy of any kind

As to the above backpack climbing, as long as I was hanging on there was hope.

I didn’t know it was a trick question.

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

What treatment would you recommend for a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy in the abdomen, since you feel removing only the baby is wrong?

In all honesty, I don’t understand how the failure happens, and could not give any definitive answer. I just don’t know enough and I don’t have the time right now to look into it. It is a fair question, though. I would want to apply the same criteria to the problem, otherwise we end up with abortion being okay in some instances where the mother’s life is in jeapardy, but that is in contradiction with church teaching as I understand it.

 

[yochumjy]

Seems to me like men are awfully quick to brand women’s reproductive organs as flawed, when that may or may not be the case.

BTW, I am discussing this from a, hopefully, theological/medical point of view. This statement seems to come dangerously close to male-bashing. The fact that I’m a male has nothing to do with this. I hope that wasn’t your intent.

Peace,

 

[BlindSheep]

yochumjy:

Removing the baby means your intent is abortion. Abortion is evil. I don’t make the rules.

Then what about the abdominal pregnancy? Can’t the baby be removed then?
Removing the baby to save the mother’s life is not the same intent as removing the baby to kill it, which is abortion.

BTW, are you saying in an ectopic pregnancy the placenta is not connected to the tube?

No.

And if you remove the baby intact and then throw them away, that is just as bad as poisioning them.

If the baby dies (as it most likely would, which can’t be helped), I would say have a proper funeral.

If the baby was removed, the tube and surrounding area thoroughly checked and then the baby placed in the uterous and tied in. I would then begin to lean toward your view.

If I had an ectopic pregnancy, I would try to find a doctor willing to do this myself. However, few are willing, because the chances of success (at saving the baby) are so slim. If it were possible, I would consider it an obligation to try to save the baby - however, at this point in time the medical technology hasn’t really gotten to that point. But if the baby is removed intact, making every possible effort to save it ( a previous poster mentioned one ectopic pregnancy where the baby was old enough to be viable and survived), I don’t think that is wrong - not when both mother and baby would otherwise die.

As long as the tube is reconnected in such a way to lessen the risk of future ectopic, and all known causes of ectopic pregnancy were looked at and ruled out, I would say that indeed that would be the most morally acceptable thing to do. Anything less than that is russian roulette, from my meager knowledge and study.

That would be the best option. As far as russian roulette goes, consider that removing the tube reduces fertility. Maybe if the tube is not removed, the woman will get pregnant twice more - one ectopic pregnancy and one healthy. Maybe if the tube is removed, she will never get pregnant again. Would it be better - that those two children (one in heaven, one on earth-never existed?

Please feel free to document that this normally occurs during a baby removal and let us go from there.

Doctors do lots of evil things, and I’m sure they don’t always do the most ethical thing in treating ectopic pregnancy either. However, as a Catholic if I were in that situation I would make sure to find a doctor who I could trust to do all the above, and I think any Catholic woman who takes her faith seriously would do the same if at all possible. Many cases I’ve heard about, doctors didn’t necessarily give patients a chance to say what their wishes were. - in which case, it is the doctor who is at fault. In an emergency situation, again, the doctor is to blame if they do something unethical, not the patient.

And your comment about lawsuits when abortions don’t survive do not fit in with this. There are self surving attitudes that would accept a baby under certain circumstances and abort them under others.

But that was exactly my point - if the  mother doesn't want the baby to die you can't say it's the same as an abortion, which is done solely because the mother (or boyfriend, government, grandmother etc.) wants the baby dead.

No one wants the baby dead when there is an ectopic pregnancy, what they want is for the mother to survive - and the baby also, if it were possible.

 

[BlindSheep]

yochumjy:

In all honesty, I don’t understand how the failure happens, and could not give any definitive answer. I just don’t know enough and I don’t have the time right now to look into it. It is a fair question, though. I would want to apply the same criteria to the problem, otherwise we end up with abortion being okay in some instances where the mother’s life is in jeapardy, but that is in contradiction with church teaching as I understand it.

As far as I know, the term abortion refers only to an act where the purpose is to kill the child, not one where the death is an “unintended side effect”. I think removing the baby intact would fit this criteria.
This is kind of similar to the Church’s position on using the contraception. Using medication for the purpose of contraception is wrong, but using medication for another purpose which has a contraceptive effect is not.

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

Then what about the abdominal pregnancy? Can’t the baby be removed then?
Removing the baby to save the mother’s life is not the same intent as removing the baby to kill it, which is abortion.

I’m sorry, but I disagree. The action of just removing the baby and seeing it die is abortion and is identical to just taking the drug.

BlindSheep:

If the baby dies (as it most likely would, which can’t be helped), I would say have a proper funeral.

You remove the child, the doctor doesn’t want to implant it, so you just place the child on a dish and it is abortion. If you at least try to implant the baby, it becomes moral. But we are also talking about the cause here. The a problem has occurred in the tube. Do you know of any doctor/procedure that checks all occurances of problems associated with ectopic pregnancy and is willing to do that. IF so, then fine, if not, then the tube would have to be removed, because the underlying cause is still there. Also, you continue to ignore that previous surgery is a cause for future ectopic pregnancies, how is that handled?

cont

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

If I had an ectopic pregnancy, I would try to find a doctor willing to do this myself. However, few are willing, because the chances of success (at saving the baby) are so slim. If it were possible, I would consider it an obligation to try to save the baby - however, at this point in time the medical technology hasn’t really gotten to that point. But if the baby is removed intact, making every possible effort to save it ( a previous poster mentioned one ectopic pregnancy where the baby was old enough to be viable and survived), I don’t think that is wrong - not when both mother and baby would otherwise die.

If the doctor won’t do the moral thing, then you have to adhere to the moral thing, whether you like it or not. Jesus never said we wouldn’t have to suffer.

BlindSheep:

That would be the best option. As far as russian roulette goes, consider that removing the tube reduces fertility. Maybe if the tube is not removed, the woman will get pregnant twice more - one ectopic pregnancy and one healthy. Maybe if the tube is removed, she will never get pregnant again. Would it be better - that those two children (one in heaven, one on earth-never existed?

No, it is not better to kill two children just to have one survive. Do you not trust God? If God wants you to have a child, then you will be able to with one tube. If both tubes are blocked, did God make a mistake. Did he say OOOPS. If you are doing your best to follow Gods will and the teaching of the Church, you will not be let down. PERIOD!

BlindSheep:

Doctors do lots of evil things, and I’m sure they don’t always do the most ethical thing in treating ectopic pregnancy either. However, as a Catholic if I were in that situation I would make sure to find a doctor who I could trust to do all the above, and I think any Catholic woman who takes her faith seriously would do the same if at all possible. Many cases I’ve heard about, doctors didn’t necessarily give patients a chance to say what their wishes were. - in which case, it is the doctor who is at fault. In an emergency situation, again, the doctor is to blame if they do something unethical, not the patient.

If the doctor is at fault and the patient is given no (name removed by moderator)ut, then I perfectly agree. I never said otherwise.

BlindSheep:

But that was exactly my point - if the mother doesn’t want the baby to die you can’t say it’s the same as an abortion, which is done solely because the mother (or boyfriend, government, grandmother etc.) wants the baby dead. No one wants the baby dead when there is an ectopic pregnancy, what they want is for the mother to survive - and the baby also, if it were possible.

Notice that I said, that some people would accept the child normally, but if there is any thing wrong with them they would accept abortion. So just wanting the baby unless there is any jeapardy to the mother may not be enough. What if there is a 10% chance the mother would die carrying to term? What about 20%. Where do you draw the line when the intent is to save the mother.

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

As far as I know, the term abortion refers only to an act where the purpose is to kill the child, not one where the death is an “unintended side effect”. I think removing the baby intact would fit this criteria.
This is kind of similar to the Church’s position on using the contraception. Using medication for the purpose of contraception is wrong, but using medication for another purpose which has a contraceptive effect is not.

I know I’m repeating myself, but intent is more than just thought process. It is part action. If your action is to remove the baby, then your intent is to save the mother by aborting the baby. This is inherently different than taking out the area that will rupture and that caused the problem (right now this is only talking about a tubal) I have not looked at the others, and frankly, I might not have an acceptable answer. I pray we are not put to the test.