Ectopic Pregnancy - analogy

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlindSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
yochumjy:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I would be capable of doing this surgery on myself.
No, it is not better to kill two children just to have one survive.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep referring to killing children? Ectopic pregnancy is a disease, and it kills the child. And no, in the scenario I gave, you would not be “killing two children so one could live”. You would be risking the death of one, because otherwise neither would exist at all. According to your logic, if I carry a genetic disorder which my children might inherit and could kill them, I must never have children or be blamed for killing my children. If I never concieved them, they wouldn’t exist at all. If they are concieved and miscarried 2 months later, they will enjoy eternal happiness in heaven. Much better than never existing at all.
Do you not trust God? If God wants you to have a child, then you will be able to with one tube.
Click to expand...
This is like saying “if God wants you to have a child, you’ll get pregnant even on the pill”. That doesn’t mean it is licit to try to prevent conception, which is exactly what you would be trying to do by removing a fallopian tube. You would be doing it to prevent those conceptions which would otherwise have occured in that tube, preventing any egg from that ovary from being fertilized. It is contraception.
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.
Click to expand...
By this logic, it would not be ethical to remove the tube eitherr, knowing this action would kill the baby. Also, by this logic, the woman with an abdominal ectopic pregnancy must be allowed to die. Clearly something’s wrong with the logic.
 
Another thing - you say in the hypothetical situation I gave you would cut the rope. According to the logic you use regarding ectopic pregnancy, wouldn’t that be a direct act of murder? If not, why not?
 
Never mind. I’m reading about this further, and it seems they don’t remove the embryo from the tube in a way that would not constitute a direct attack on the embryo. Apparently, the embryo is removed with a “suction measure” - clearly an act of violence, as is the methotrexate, because it attacks the cells of the placenta which is one of the baby’s own organs. So I agree with you after all. On the other hand, if it were possible to remove the baby without directly harming it, and with the intent of attempting to reimplant in the uterus, this would be the best thing to do - but it would be impossible without first removing the baby from the tube. If removing the baby from the tube is intrinsically evil, wouldn’t it be evil even if the baby was going to be reimplanted in the uterus? And if it is not intrinsically evil to remove the baby intact, and the intent is to save the mother’s life, then it would be permissable even while reimplantation was impossible. After all, the pathology is the location of the baby in the tube - it is this that threatens both the mother and the baby. If one were to attempt to save the baby, it would be necessary to first remove the baby from the tube - but you say to do so would be intrinsically evil. Being located in the tube is not healthy for the baby any more than it is healthy for the mother - how could removing the baby from an unhealthy environment be wrong?
This would *only *apply to removing the baby intact, with the same care as would be used if the baby could survive - not to suctioning it out of the tube or stopping its growth with methotrexate.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Ectopic pregnancy is a disease, and it kills the child.
Click to expand...
How do you define ectopic pregnacy as a disease? It is a condition. It is when the baby implants somewhere other than the uterus. It is not a disease.

The baby dies because it cannot grow to term outside the uterus.
 
40.png
RuffinIt:
How do you define ectopic pregnacy as a disease? It is a condition. It is when the baby implants somewhere other than the uterus. It is not a disease.

The baby dies because it cannot grow to term outside the uterus.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between “disease” and “condition”. Ectopic pregnancy is not a normal, healthy condition - it is abnormal and life threatening to both the mother and baby, therefore a disease. I didn’t mean “disease” in the sense of an infection, but in the sense of a pathological condition.
 
An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy gone wrong, gone not according to God’s plan, gone astray and both mother and child will die. To terminate the ectopic pregnancy would be no different than a miscarriage where the faulty pregnancy corrects itself.

I have a great respect for life but not to the point of putting two lives at risk or even of putting a woman through all the things you are talking about to save a baby that in all liklihood would not live anyway.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between “disease” and “condition”. Ectopic pregnancy is not a normal, healthy condition - it is abnormal and life threatening to both the mother and baby, therefore a disease. I didn’t mean “disease” in the sense of an infection, but in the sense of a pathological condition.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why, but calling it a disease strikes me the wrong way. I can’t explain why, but maybe it is because you can cure a disease, but you can’t cure an ectopic pregnancy without losing the baby.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Never mind. I’m reading about this further, and it seems they don’t remove the embryo from the tube in a way that would not constitute a direct attack on the embryo. Apparently, the embryo is removed with a “suction measure” - clearly an act of violence
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to be suction. Other physical methods have been used. However, if you remove the baby another way or if it naturally falls out, it is still desireable to remove any placenta that remains in the tube, as it by itself can pose a problem. The suction is one of the best ways to remove any remaining trophoblast material. So I would guess that they figure starting with it is a good idea, since ending with it is.😦
 
40.png
Pug:
It doesn’t have to be suction. Other physical methods have been used. However, if you remove the baby another way or if it naturally falls out, it is still desireable to remove any placenta that remains in the tube, as it by itself can pose a problem. The suction is one of the best ways to remove any remaining trophoblast material. So I would guess that they figure starting with it is a good idea, since ending with it is.😦
Click to expand...
I guess what I’m thinking is if it would be possible to detach the placenta from the inner wall of the tube without damaging the baby or placenta so much that this damage would kill the baby, this wouldn’t be an “attack” or an “abortion” necessarily. It must be possible, since there have been two cases where the baby was successfully reattached to the uterus - therefore, the baby must have been first removed from the tube without serious damage to the baby or placenta. This type of removal must be morally acceptable, since it can be done to save the baby, not just to kill it. Therefore, removing the baby from the tube is not an intrinsically evil act. If it is not intrinsically evil, it can be justified to save the mother, even if reattaching the baby is not possible in a particular instance.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
This type of removal must be morally acceptable, since it can be done to save the baby, not just to kill it. Therefore, removing the baby from the tube is not an intrinsically evil act. If it is not intrinsically evil, it can be justified to save the mother, even if reattaching the baby is not possible in a particular instance.
Click to expand...
Removing the baby from its current location would clearly be the first step in moving it to a safe location, I agree, so obviously (to me and you anyway) it cannot be intrinsicaly evil to remove it. Otherwise, how could you ever save its life? It would be ridiculous if one could not.

However, removing something for its own sake and removing it for someone else’s is not the same thing. Just a quick attempt at analogy. Say I want to remove my kidney. I can do it for myself (disease) or for someone else (organ donate). Just because it is okay to do for my integral, complete health does not mean it is okay to do it to the detriment of my health and the benefit of someone else. I mean, can you see that the two removals of the kidney are different cases? I don’t mean to say organ donation is evil, just that it maybe is different in kind somehow from just organ removal because of disease.

Do you think it matters if the removal is for the overall health of the baby verses for someonelse’s health? I’m not sure, just throwing it out.
 
40.png
Pug:
Do you think it matters if the removal is for the overall health of the baby verses for someonelse’s health? I’m not sure, just throwing it out.
Click to expand...
I see your point - one couldn’t be forced to donate a kidney to save someone else’s life, for instance - but the difference is that the baby, left in the tube, will die anyway. If removing the baby won’t save his life, neither will leaving him in the tube. Removing the baby from the tube is not removing him from a safe place where he belongs, but from a place where he isn’t meant to be and can’t survive.
 
I’ve searched the CCC and can’t find anything on this particular subject. Given the degree of debate and speculation here, am I to assume that the Church has no official teaching on what to do in this situation?
 
Kristina,

I don’t know of an official vatican document or catechetical document to direct you to (I don’t think there is one, but I could be wrong), but the bishops in the united states have some sort of directives that are offered on these issues. They are a kind of health directives document, which gets updated from time to time.

If you are in the situation, please consult your confessor. Otherwise, I can say that the consensus appears to be that if a child is lodged in your tube and your tube is getting diseased and will burst, then the tube may be removed and the child will be inside it and die. I think this question is answered in the ask and apologist forum if you search.

Here is the document I mentioned. Scroll down to directive 47 for an example of something that applies to some situations.
 
Just out of curiosity…have any of you who have posted actually **HAD ** an ectopic pregnancy?

This thread is extremely hard on those of us who have, **but ** a worthwhile discussion for anyone trying to achieve pregnancy so that they can be prepared.

Typically you find out in an emergency room, with all of about 2 minutes to comprehend that your hopes, dreams and joys have just been ripped from your heart and that you are facing death if you wish to have a few moments to think through your options. Most people do not even **KNOW ** that there is a moral question until after they have come through the otherside of an ectopic pregnancy only to find themselves faced with the guilt and pain that accompanies an early pregnancy loss.
 
40.png
FinallyHome:
This thread is extremely hard on those of us who have, **but ** a worthwhile discussion for anyone trying to achieve pregnancy so that they can be prepared.
Click to expand...
I haven’t, but I find the issue very disconcerting, which is why I post on the threads about it. I understand that couples probably end up unexpectedly in the emergency room and just do whatever the doctor says must be done at that time. The thought of all those women feeling like they have done something wrong is painful to me. I do understand that it is traumatic to lose a child early, and that people don’t always understand this loss. And then for some couples there is the added burden of the child having been ectopic.

We are at risk of ectopic, but probably will never get pregnant.😦 I worry about how we would handle it.

The mitigating factors are very high in an ectopic case, if, hypothetically, someone were to be worried about what was done. Not that me saying so will help, I’m sure.👋 I’m sorry the thread is causing distress!
 
Eptopic pregnancy is a tough one and your analogy is awful… An eptopic baby has no chance of survival and it should be viewed as a miscarriage, there is no way save the baby and place her in the uterus where she can safely grow. An ectopic pregnancy is a condition where a fertilized egg settles and grows in any location other than the inner lining of the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube.
If you have a miscarriage you often have to have a procedure called an D and C procedure that is much like an abortion, but the baby is already dead. This is necessary because if you did not have this procedure your body could have a difficult time recovering and you may get an infection causing you to miscarry again or death. You may also have to go through a still birth situation and that is just emotionally taxing when you have already gone through the loss of life. The Procedure is done at a hospital (not at an abortion mill) and you are closely monitered by your Dr. for months to make sure everything is okay. If a woman does not address an eptopic pregnancy, she will die and the baby will die. Please do not think that having a procedure to end an ectopic prgnancy is anything like an abortion–it is not. The reason I went into so much detail is because I think from your post that you have no idea what an ectopic pregnancy is and you are confusing it with an abortion.
 
40.png
beckyann2597:
Eptopic pregnancy is a tough one and your analogy is awful… An eptopic baby has no chance of survival and it should be viewed as a miscarriage, there is no way save the baby and place her in the uterus where she can safely grow. An ectopic pregnancy is a condition where a fertilized egg settles and grows in any location other than the inner lining of the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube.
If you have a miscarriage you often have to have a procedure called an D and C procedure that is much like an abortion, but the baby is already dead. This is necessary because if you did not have this procedure your body could have a difficult time recovering and you may get an infection causing you to miscarry again or death. You may also have to go through a still birth situation and that is just emotionally taxing when you have already gone through the loss of life. The Procedure is done at a hospital (not at an abortion mill) and you are closely monitered by your Dr. for months to make sure everything is okay. If a woman does not address an eptopic pregnancy, she will die and the baby will die. Please do not think that having a procedure to end an ectopic prgnancy is anything like an abortion–it is not. The reason I went into so much detail is because I think from your post that you have no idea what an ectopic pregnancy is and you are confusing it with an abortion.
Click to expand...
We went round and round on this on a thread, which eventually got closed! 😉 But, saying the killing of a live child is not an abortion because it’s ectopic is patently false. The difference between a D&C and the killing of a live child which is ectopic is the difference between doing an autopsy on a live body vs a dead one. One is licit, the other not. It is completely irrelavant where an abortion is done or who does it.

For the person who went through this, I am very sorry! If this happened and you didn’t understand what was going on fully, you are not culpable. No one could blame you, and I pray it never happens again to you! This thread is not about blame for past actions, it is simply part of understanding the teaching of the church.

For this discussion, I believe the term abortion is any procudure by which your intent is to kill the child. If you kill the child in order to save the mother you are still killing the child. If your intent is to stop the mother’s death by removing the tube, then the intent is not to kill the child, even though the death of the child is an undesirable result. Part of the long discussion from before was over the intention/action of removing the tube vs a chemical abortion/other abortion. I’m sure that we could get into another long involved debate on that. The other thread is here if you are interested in the history of the other debate.

previous ectopic thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top