Ectopic Pregnancy Options

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave27360
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dave27360

Guest
During an area pro-life rosary a lady spoke to the group asking the following question. Will the abortion laws with no exceptions for when the life of the mother in danger keep her from getting an abortion? She had been through seven ectopic pregnancies and has had seven abortions. Everyone was stumped at how to answer. Abortion is never morally acceptable. I found some information http://m.ncregister.com/blog/kschif...awry-the-moral-ending-to-an-ectopic-pregnancy which mentioned that Salpingectomy (cutting the tube on both sides around the embryo). Is the removal of a tube the only morally acceptable option? How should one answer if asked a similar question again? A third question is why do doctors not promote the morally acceptable option(s)?
 
Ectopic pregnancy is morally treated with the removal of the Fallopian tube, a procedure called a salpingectomy.
Dave27360 said:
A third question is why do doctors not promote the morally acceptable option(s)?
Click to expand...
My doctor did.
 
Yes, in those cases, removing the portion of the fallopian tube is the moral option. The death of the fetus is the forseen, but unintended consequence of the procedure. This is morally acceptable under the principle of double effect.

This is different from directly killing the unborn through abortion. That is never permissible. Just because the result is the same (i.e. the death of the unborn) does not mean that the method is of no consequence.

It’s similar to a situation where a person is dying and administering pain medication might hasten their death. This can be permissible as the goal is to alleviate suffering in the face of imminent death. But it would not be moral to suffocate them with a pillow nor to poison them to “end their suffering.”
 
Exactly. The moral way to treat an ectopic is not a direct abortion.

I am sad for this woman to have been given only the immoral option of direct abortion on seven occasions :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
 
There also the possibility that the lady didn’t have “abortions” in the way pro-lifers understand the word.

Medical knowledge and terminology among non medical people is pretty deplorable and it leads to a lot of confusion.
I’ve talked to people who thought they had had an medically necessary abortion, when upon further questioning, they’d had a d&e to remove a dead embryo that their body didn’t expel naturally.

Unfortunately, sometimes people wind up believing that abortion is necessary, or whatever and they fundamentally don’t understand the issues.
 
The removal of the fallopian tune containing the fetus permanently harms the woman. The alternative, what Catholics call ‘direct abortion’ does not. This is a classic example of the way the Catholic position on abortion is inexplicable to others who do not accept ‘natural law’ and the view that ‘no matter what, the end never justifies the means’. This is another reason why(as far as I know) even the most restrictive abortion laws never mirror the entire Catholic position.
 
However, morality is not now and never has been up for popular vote.
The embryo is still a person with the right not to be directly killed.
Yes, the circumstances are bad and unfair and painful.
But we still can’t kill.
 
I am not a doc so why can’t the embryo be replanted in the uterus where it belongs?
 
I’m not a doctor either but I’m guessing it’s beyond our current technology to do so.
 
FiveLinden said:
The removal of the fallopian tune containing the fetus permanently harms the woman. The alternative, what Catholics call ‘direct abortion’ does not.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by permanently harms the woman? There is still the possibility of pregnancy if one tube is left intact.

Where is the evidence that the removal of the tube permanently harms the woman or that direct abortion does not harm the woman?
 
We can grow a baby’s from a test tube after the embryo has been indefinitely frozen. It seems to me we ought to be able to transplant it within the same mother. Some surgical procedures seem amazing.
 
Someone asked a similar question to yours a few weeks ago about ectopic pregnancies, and I liked this answer:
40.png
Scratching my head over the issue with methotrexate use in ectopic pregnancy Moral Theology
Full disclosure: I have an advanced degree in Bioethics, so this is kind of my field. In cases of ectopic pregnancy, if the embryo is still alive, then it would seem that the only licit treatment is a salpingectomy, that is, the removal of the Fallopian tube. This is morally licit via the principle of double effect: the unintended, yet foreseen, consequence of removing a pathological Fallopian tube is the death of the embryo. In cases of a woman with a gravid uterus during pregnancy, this is al…
Click to expand...
 
My doctor apologized as he had to write down “spontaneous abortion.” Ultrasound showed no baby, no heartbeat, but a mass. I was scheduled for a D &C but passed it before I got to the hospital. It was placental tissue, no fetus. He said the fetus must have “re-absorbed.” This was 34 years ago, so I don’t know if they have changed any terminology.
 
Thank You for the link to the older post which the link to the paper which explained ectopic pregnancy options further. Expectant management is another option listed. Also interesting is the paper states there was a successful transfer from the tube to the uterus in 1980.
 
FiveLinden said:
40.png
Dave27360:
Where is the evidence that the removal of the tube permanently harms the woman or that direct abortion does not harm the woman?
Click to expand...
Reduces chances of pregnancy. Removes an organ.
Click to expand...
Your position makes no sense.
You are concerned about harming a woman when the procedure saves her life.
Can you clarify that?

Doctors remove organs and body parts all the time to save lives. These body parts are not unique human beings like an unborn child.

?
 
Yes, removal of the tube may reduce the chances of pregnancy but leaves the ability for future pregnancies as there is still another functional tube.
 
Last edited:
You attributed a quote to me that is not mine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top