Ectopic pregnancy and direct abortion.

[ForeverGrace]

My goodness, I can’t believe what I’m reading here. A tubal pregnancy is a life threatening condition for ANY woman.

Am I to believe that the Magesterium actually says that we should let the mother and baby die? Where is the moral good in that?

I’m as anti-abortion as a person could possibly be (short of killing a perpetrator). It’s a heinous act. But a tubal pregnancy will never result in a human being unless it implants somewhere outside of the tube itself. It will just kill the mother as well. I suppose an argument could be made that if 1 person in a million actually produces a healthy baby, we shouldn’t actively resolve the pregnancy by surgery or medication, but that’s not wisdom and would only result in letting the other 999,999 children and mothers die.

I will be happy to listen to any explanation for this. However my 20 years in the medical profession tells me that killing two people is far worse than one.

 

[elts1956]

My goodness, I can’t believe what I’m reading here. A tubal pregnancy is a life threatening condition for ANY woman.

Am I to believe that the Magesterium actually says that we should let the mother and baby die? Where is the moral good in that?

I’m as anti-abortion as a person could possibly be (short of killing a perpetrator). It’s a heinous act. But a tubal pregnancy will never result in a human being unless it implants somewhere outside of the tube itself. It will just kill the mother as well. I suppose an argument could be made that if 1 person in a million actually produces a healthy baby, we shouldn’t actively resolve the pregnancy by surgery or medication, but that’s not wisdom and would only result in letting the other 999,999 children and mothers die.

I will be happy to listen to any explanation for this. However my 20 years in the medical profession tells me that killing two people is far worse than one.

There is a surgical solution, but it is not aborting the baby.

 

[tjm190]

My goodness, I can’t believe what I’m reading here. A tubal pregnancy is a life threatening condition for ANY woman.

Am I to believe that the Magesterium actually says that we should let the mother and baby die? Where is the moral good in that?

I’m as anti-abortion as a person could possibly be (short of killing a perpetrator). It’s a heinous act. But a tubal pregnancy will never result in a human being unless it implants somewhere outside of the tube itself. It will just kill the mother as well. I suppose an argument could be made that if 1 person in a million actually produces a healthy baby, we shouldn’t actively resolve the pregnancy by surgery or medication, but that’s not wisdom and would only result in letting the other 999,999 children and mothers die.

I will be happy to listen to any explanation for this. However my 20 years in the medical profession tells me that killing two people is far worse than one.

The idea is this- you may remove the tube because that’s not a direct abortion- the baby dies as a side effect. You may not take a pill that dissolves the embryo, because that is a direct abortion. So the mother has to go through a riskier more invasive procedure that is more likely to result in infertility because of semantics.

 

[blue_waters_73]

the mother and child can not survive with an etopic pregnancy. The baby would grow until it burst the mother’s tube causing her to die from internal bleeding. Neither child or mother could make it in this situation and yes it’s tragic, but the church also puts priority on the mother’s life in this situation. It is not against the church or it’s teachings to terminate the pregnancy in this instance as there is no chance of survival. My SIL almost passed away about 6 months ago because of an etopic pregnancy but they were able to save her during emergency surgery AFTER her tube has ruptured (she did not know it was etopic).

Instead of risking the life of the mother and performing surgery, medication is often given to end the pregnancy not because they want to kill the baby but because neither can survive otherwise. If she has other childen how is if fair to give her a death sentence?

I’ve read other responses and I do see your points, but the point of the surgery is to terminate the pregnancy as well. It’s just a different means of doing it. I think the argument is getting too technical - Jesus isn’t about technicalities but about forgiveness and understanding.

 

[elts1956]

the mother and child can not survive with an etopic pregnancy. The baby would grow until it burst the mother’s tube causing her to die from internal bleeding. Neither child or mother could make it in this situation and yes it’s tragic, but the church also puts priority on the mother’s life in this situation. It is not against the church or it’s teachings to terminate the pregnancy in this instance as there is no chance of survival. My SIL almost passed away about 6 months ago because of an etopic pregnancy but they were able to save her during emergency surgery AFTER her tube has ruptured (she did not know it was etopic).

Instead of risking the life of the mother and performing surgery, medication is often given to end the pregnancy not because they want to kill the baby but because neither can survive otherwise. If she has other childen how is if fair to give her a death sentence?

I’ve read other responses and I do see your points, but the point of the surgery is to terminate the pregnancy as well. It’s just a different means of doing it. I think the argument is getting too technical - Jesus isn’t about technicalities but about forgiveness and understanding.

The termination of the pregnancy is a side effect. I have had difficulty understanding this also. But it is the intention that matters here. The intention is to remove a “diseased” portion of a fallopian tube. Unfortunately the baby became “stuck”, for lack of a better word by a tube that was not healthy enough to allow the child to go through and result in a normal pregnancy. Medicinal dissolving of the baby is an abortion.

 

[elts1956]

the mother and child can not survive with an etopic pregnancy. The baby would grow until it burst the mother’s tube causing her to die from internal bleeding. Neither child or mother could make it in this situation and yes it’s tragic, but the church also puts priority on the mother’s life in this situation. It is not against the church or it’s teachings to terminate the pregnancy in this instance as there is no chance of survival. My SIL almost passed away about 6 months ago because of an etopic pregnancy but they were able to save her during emergency surgery AFTER her tube has ruptured (she did not know it was etopic).

Instead of risking the life of the mother and performing surgery, medication is often given to end the pregnancy not because they want to kill the baby but because neither can survive otherwise. If she has other childen how is if fair to give her a death sentence?

I’ve read other responses and I do see your points, but the point of the surgery is to terminate the pregnancy as well. It’s just a different means of doing it. I think the argument is getting too technical - Jesus isn’t about technicalities but about forgiveness and understanding.

The idea is this- you may remove the tube because that’s not a direct abortion- the baby dies as a side effect. You may not take a pill that dissolves the embryo, because that is a direct abortion. So the mother has to go through a riskier more invasive procedure that is more likely to result in infertility because of semantics.

If you want to go the semantic way, zygote is a semantic substitution for baby, foetus is a semantic substitution for baby, etc. etc. Abortion, in my opinion, is the result of 50% semantics, 50% blind ignorance.

 

[Moscati]

This is one situation that just makes me crazy. I understand the Church’s position, and why they arrived at it . . . but the medical professional, the scientist, and the future mother in me just strain against it. The poor child is never going to live. How is better to cut it out and toss it in a bucket or a biohazard bag than it is to make it detach from the tube and pass out into the toilet? I can’t see a real difference. (And the whole situation makes me sad.)

 

[Jermosh]

Jermosh, I thinky you have posted on similar threads about similar situation. To end an ectopic pregnancy, the most moral thing to do is have the diseased portion of the"tube" surgically removed. Thus the child would not die through direct abortion. There is a difference. The difference is in “intent”.

But the intent in both removal and useing certain drugs is to save the mother. The outcome of the child is already decided on “Mother Nature”.

 

[Jermosh]

Those “cells” are a human being at a very early stage of development. Next stage, zygote, foetus, embryo, baby, toddler, pre schooler, 6 year old, 7 year old etc. It’s a baby and immoral to directly kill it.

The life of the mother does not over ride that of the child no matter what you “think”.

From what I understand, the drug only makes the child release its hold from the tubes. How is that immoral? As again, this is not a perfectly healthy being, its one that is in distress and putting another person in grave danger. Allowing it to release itself is not killing it directly.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

From what I understand, the drug only makes the child release its hold from the tubes. How is that immoral? As again, this is not a perfectly healthy being, its one that is in distress and putting another person in grave danger. Allowing it to release itself is not killing it directly.

no.

How does methotrexate work?
Methotrexate works by stopping the growth of
all rapidly dividing cells. For ectopic pregnancy,
treatment with methotrexate can stop the egg
from growing before a rupture occurs.
Sometimes, methotrexate is combined with surgery
to treat an ectopic pregnancy. In this case, the
medication removes fetal cells left behind
after surgery.

kr.ihc.com/ext/Dcmnt?ncid=520550088

 

[SavedByHim]

I’m honestly very surprised that people are having a hard time understanding the difference. To me, it is painfully clear that one is murder of a baby and one is saving the mother from death.

As a mom of 4 small children and one on the way, there is just NO WAY I could ever intentionally take a substance that I know was meant to murder my baby. I fully, completely understand that by removing my tube with my baby in it, my baby would die as well, but it is completely black and white different in my eyes.

And just as an aside, my close friend had an ectopic pregnancy where they gave her the methotrexate… And it didn’t work. She went back in day after day, week after week and that baby was still growing in there. :crying: It was a fighter. The emotional toll it took on her to repeatedly have to go in and try to kill her baby was tremendous, not to mention the physical side effects the continued treatements of methotrexate had on her.

I understand that her situation was probably in the minority, but I mention it to demonstrate to those that think methotrexate is the “easy” way out, that isn’t always the case.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

The fallopian tube in this instance is not necessarily “diseased”. It’s just that the fetus became implanted in the wrong place.

The fallopian tube is “diseased” in this case precisely because the young human being implanted in the “wrong place”.

Somewhat similar: an appendix can become diseased simply because something good (food) enters where it should not be.

The difference in this case is that that what has entered into the wrong place is a human being with commensurate dignity and rights.

While ectopic pregnancy is a much more difficult case in light of medicine as it currently stands, the principle of doing everything possible to protect the rights and dignity of all human persons involved must be observed.

Perhaps some good Catholic doctors and researchers should be working on ways to transplant such young humans who are unfortunately in the wrong place - or finding even better options for both the mother and child.

 

[ForeverGrace]

I’m still a little confused as to the comments here. I think that everone who posted absolutely believes that they are right, but some of them are not.

For my own peace of mind is there really anything in the Magesterium that forbids the surgircal intervetion to save the mother? Or is it just the use of Methotrexate tha accomplishes the same thing without removing the tube. And… keeps the mothes fertility completey in tact. I’m sure everyone understands that removing of a fallopian tube reduces fertility by 50%,

It’s not my role to ciriticize the decision people make here, I just can’t figure out how killing both the mother and child is a good thing.

Thanks to all. I could be just misunderstanding what I’m ready.

Blessings to all.

 

[tjm190]

I’m still a little confused as to the comments here. I think that everone who posted absolutely believes that they are right, but some of them are not.

For my own peace of mind is there really anything in the Magesterium that forbids the surgircal intervetion to save the mother? Or is it just the use of Methotrexate tha accomplishes the same thing without removing the tube. And… keeps the mothes fertility completey in tact. I’m sure everyone understands that removing of a fallopian tube reduces fertility by 50%,

It’s not my role to ciriticize the decision people make here, I just can’t figure out how killing both the mother and child is a good thing.

Thanks to all. I could be just misunderstanding what I’m ready.

Blessings to all.

Here I go explaining a teaching I disagree with-
The idea is this- The tube is, for all intents and purposes, broken. But not just broken in a way that it’s not going to do its job, broken in a way that it’s going to kill the mother. SO, obviously the tube has to come out. So we do that, and the mother is saved- bad news though, the child can’t survive because he/she has been cut off from the mother. That’s a sad unintended, but foreseen, side effect.
If you pop a pill which dissolves the embryo, you’re killing the child- directly. That’s a big no-no.
So the ‘licit’ option carries more risk of negative consequences and a greater impact on reproductive capability, and adds no tangible benefits.

 

[Zatzat]

Here I go explaining a teaching I disagree with-
The idea is this- The tube is, for all intents and purposes, broken. But not just broken in a way that it’s not going to do its job, broken in a way that it’s going to kill the mother. SO, obviously the tube has to come out. So we do that, and the mother is saved- bad news though, the child can’t survive because he/she has been cut off from the mother. That’s a sad unintended, but foreseen, side effect.
If you pop a pill which dissolves the embryo, you’re killing the child- directly. That’s a big no-no.
So the ‘licit’ option carries more risk of negative consequences and a greater impact on reproductive capability, and adds no tangible benefits.

Seems to me, the rational, moral and proper thing to do would be to take the drug that achieves the same result, only it leaves the woman intact.

 

[ForeverGrace]

COLOR=“Green”]

The idea in this- The tube is, for all intents and purposes, broken. But not just broken in a way that it’s not going to do its job, broken in a way that it’s going to kill the mother. SO, obviously the tube has to come out. So we do that, and the mother is saved- bad news though, the child can’t survive because he/she has been cut off from the mother. That’s a sad unintended, but foreseen, side effect.
If you pop a pill which dissolves the embryo, you’re killing the child- directly. That’s a big no-no. But to without the medicine, means the mothe and child will die.
So the ‘lilicit’ option carries more risk of negative consequences and a greater impact on reproductive capability, and adds no tangible benefits.

I think that I am misunderstanding our post. I get the impression that nothing matters matter how profondly sad that this makes you. I agree it’s very sad. I agree it’s very sad. ethoroxiate does the same thing, but leave the tube in tact so the woman can have more chidren, when the tubal excsisement does not. Virtall all of thse pregnancies end with a dead baby and a dead child. I can’t for the likfe of me, see how this is the betere alternative.

 

[Mamanurse]

COLOR=“Green”]

The idea in this- The tube is, for all intents and purposes, broken. But not just broken in a way that it’s not going to do its job, broken in a way that it’s going to kill the mother. SO, obviously the tube has to come out. So we do that, and the mother is saved- bad news though, the child can’t survive because he/she has been cut off from the mother. That’s a sad unintended, but foreseen, side effect.
If you pop a pill which dissolves the embryo, you’re killing the child- directly. That’s a big no-no. But to without the medicine, means the mothe and child will die.
So the ‘lilicit’ option carries more risk of negative consequences and a greater impact on reproductive capability, and adds no tangible benefits.

I think that I am misunderstanding our post. I get the impression that nothing matters matter how profondly sad that this makes you. I agree it’s very sad. I agree it’s very sad. ethoroxiate does the same thing, but leave the tube in tact so the woman can have more chidren, when the tubal excsisement does not. Virtall all of thse pregnancies end with a dead baby and a dead child. I can’t for the likfe of me, see how this is the betere alternative.

The reason I believe it is better to have the tube completely removed is because even after the baby is removed, whether it be by Methotrexate or cutting a slit in the tube to remove the baby, the tube will forever be damaged. Leaving this damaged tube in only increases the chances of having more ectopic pregnancies in the future. While the removal of the tube does slightly lower the chances of conceiving from that particular side, the ovaries are still functioning and it had been told to me from my OB that the egg can manage to make its way to the other fallopian tube in some cases.

If you hadn’t read my post earlier, I had an ectopic pregnancy just over a month ago. I had my left tube removed. Even my doctors, who are not catholic, opted for the surgical approach because of the dangers of the Methotrexate to the mother and the fact that it is a direct abortion. Not to mention that it is not a 100% in removing the baby and therefore tissue will continue to develop and the mother will need to have surgery anyway…prolonging the process of a miscarriage is emotionally and physically draining to the mother. I know, in my heart, that my baby is in heaven and that I did the best thing for him.

 

[Zatzat]

Even my doctors, who are not catholic, opted for the surgical approach because of the dangers of the Methotrexate to the mother and the fact that it is a direct abortion. Not to mention that it is not a 100% in removing the baby and therefore tissue will continue to develop and the mother will need to have surgery anyway.

“therefore tissue will continue to develop and** the mother will need to have surgery anyway.”**

Methotrexate can and does completely terminate an ectopic pregnancy.

'Methotrexate can be used to:

End an early ectopic pregnancy.

Prevent the growth of any embryonic or fetal cells that are left behind after surgery to end an ectopic pregnancy.’

‘Methotrexate treatment can be given as a single shot or as several injections. If an ectopic pregnancy continues after 2 or 3 doses of methotrexate, surgical treatment is needed to remove the ectopic pregnancy.’

webmd.com/baby/methotrexate-for-ectopic-pregnancy

 

[CAnnElizabeth]

The termination of the pregnancy is a side effect. I have had difficulty understanding this also. But it is the intention that matters here. The intention is to remove a “diseased” portion of a fallopian tube. Unfortunately the baby became “stuck”, for lack of a better word by a tube that was not healthy enough to allow the child to go through and result in a normal pregnancy. Medicinal dissolving of the baby is an abortion.

An abortion is termination of a medically viable pregnancy - one that would presumably ultimately, if left undisturbed, result in a live infant (other circumstances not intervening). As has been pointed out several times, an ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy under any circumstances.

Maybe when science can figure out how to transfer the embryo (or whatever developmental stage it may be) to the uterus this will be a more difficult question. It’s not an ethical, moral or Catholic question at this point. It is a life-threatening medical situation which will not ever result in a live birth of a viable infant.

If there’s a chance of using the drug that may preserve fertility for that tube, that would be the pro-life method.

I’m very sorry for your recent loss, MamaNurse, and wish you the very best in the future. You will be in my prayers.

 

[LilyM]

Seems to me, the rational, moral and proper thing to do would be to take the drug that achieves the same result, only it leaves the woman intact.

With all respect, the results are very different. The chemical option does not treat the child as a human being with inherent dignity, but instead a mere nuisance with no human life in it at all. A lump of extraneous cells to be dissolved chemically with no more thought for it and no more inherent worth than a cancerous tumour or infected abscess has.