Help Me With This Pro-Abortion Argument!

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. I could use some help and fast! This person on another forum is arguing that abortion is not murder during the case of the removal of an infected fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy because the aim is to remove the fetus and not the tube. Technically she is correct. If they can remove the fetus and save the tube, they will do so so therefore the aim of the operation is to remove the fetus and is thereby a direct abortion. I told her that all direct abortions are murders but I didn’t know what else to say. What do I say?

 

[po18guy]

Holly, Quick! priestsforlife.org/

Christ’s peace.

 

[Harmony1988]

Holly:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=231746

 

[Nan_S]

Hi everyone. I could use some help and fast! This person on another forum is arguing that abortion is not murder during the case of the removal of an infected fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy because the aim is to remove the fetus and not the tube. Technically she is correct. If they can remove the fetus and save the tube, they will do so so therefore the aim of the operation is to remove the fetus and is thereby a direct abortion. I told her that all direct abortions are murders but I didn’t know what else to say. What do I say?

You’re dealing with the “Double Effect” issue. The Vatican has not ruled on this, in specific language anyway. Other Catholic theologians have reasoned it through, however. Here’s how it goes:

It is not permissible to remove a living embryo/fetus from a fallopian tube with the intent of killing the baby but saving the tube. This is a direct abortion. Modern surgery is not quite capable of doing this yet, but the drug Methotrexate can be effectively used for this purpose.

It is permissible to remove a diseased organ, even one containing a live embryo/fetus, if leaving the organ alone and intact will almost certainly result in the death of the mother, which then would obviously result in the death of the baby. One such circumstance is when a strong likelihood exists that the mother would bleed to death when the tube inevitably ruptures. Another circumstance could be cancer of the womb. Sucn surgery would not be a direct abortion, because the primary intent of the surgery is to heal, not destroy. If surgery is done under these circumstances, provisions should be made to immediately baptise the baby

We do have cases on record where the fallopian tube ruptured, the baby implanted outside the womb, then was delivered alive and healthy by c-section between the 7th and 9th month. They are rare, but they happen. About 10 years ago a British woman gave birth to healthy twin girls who developed inside the womb, and their healthy triplet brother who implanted inside the fallopian tube, ruptured the tube, and grew to near-full-term between the womb and the bladder.

Obviously, nothing is completely certain, and everything is possible with God. However the best of us recognize that God gave us intelligent brains and capable hands.

It is always permissible to remove an embryo/fetus that died naturally, using whatever means can be safely employed.

Hope this helps.
Nan

 

[Pinkyyy]

You’re dealing with the “Double Effect” issue. The Vatican has not ruled on this, in specific language anyway. Other Catholic theologians have reasoned it through, however. Here’s how it goes:

It is not permissible to remove a living embryo/fetus from a fallopian tube with the intent of killing the baby but saving the tube. This is a direct abortion. Modern surgery is not quite capable of doing this yet, but the drug Methotrexate can be effectively used for this purpose.

It is permissible to remove a diseased organ, even one containing a live embryo/fetus, if leaving the organ alone and intact will almost certainly result in the death of the mother, which then would obviously result in the death of the baby. One such circumstance is when a strong likelihood exists that the mother would bleed to death when the tube inevitably ruptures. Another circumstance could be cancer of the womb. Sucn surgery would not be a direct abortion, because the primary intent of the surgery is to heal, not destroy. If surgery is done under these circumstances, provisions should be made to immediately baptise the baby

We do have cases on record where the fallopian tube ruptured, the baby implanted outside the womb, then was delivered alive and healthy by c-section between the 7th and 9th month. They are rare, but they happen. About 10 years ago a British woman gave birth to healthy twin girls who developed inside the womb, and their healthy triplet brother who implanted inside the fallopian tube, ruptured the tube, and grew to near-full-term between the womb and the bladder.

Obviously, nothing is completely certain, and everything is possible with God. However the best of us recognize that God gave us intelligent brains and capable hands.

It is always permissible to remove an embryo/fetus that died naturally, using whatever means can be safely employed.

Hope this helps.
Nan

Nan, do you have links to that information? I have never heard of it, but if it’s there, I would like to read it.

 

[Nan_S]

Nan, do you have links to that information? I have never heard of it, but if it’s there, I would like to read it.

Give me another day or two to pull my sources back up and I’ll post them for you. I researched this for an RCIA enquirer several months ago, but I’ve deleted the links since.

The prohibition on direct abortion comes from the CCC. The “double effect” analysis comes from certain leading Catholic theologians. The extra-uterine triplet was born to an English woman sometime around 1999. Extra-uterine pregnancies are rare but not unheard of; the triplet aspect made that one special.

Of course, a non-viable live-born baby should always be immediately baptised. When the surgery is a scheduled non-crisis event, there is simply no excuse for not making provision to do this. Even Catholics tend to forget that, in times of necessity, anyone can baptise.

The important point to remember on the “double effect” analysis is that God has a way of making things work out. A woman might die from a continued extra-uterine pregnancy, but the analysis of how likely that is would be on a case-by-case basis. It is unfortunate that the presumption of OB/GYNs seems to be to err on the side of caution (and avoid malpractice lawsuits) by urging women to have the fallopian tube surgically removed as soon as an extra-uterine pregnancy is detected.

Nan

 

[seekerz]

It is unfortunate that the presumption of OB/GYNs seems to be to err on the side of caution (and avoid malpractice lawsuits) by urging women to have the fallopian tube surgically removed as soon as an extra-uterine pregnancy is detected.

Nan

How is that “unfortunate”? Ectopic pregnancy can be fatal (actually, it’s one of the leading causes of pregnancy-related deaths) and there is no way to predict exactly when a tube is going to rupture. Once it ruptures, the likelihood of the woman bleeding to death is pretty high. If, in the odd case, a pregnancy were to survive after rupture and grow to term, that cannot be the measure to decide how to treat everyone with this condition. Except for very early in the course of this condition, failure to intervene medically would constitute no less than a dereliction of duty.

I may have a stroke, heart attack or ruptured appendix out in the desert and survive without treatment, but that does not make medical intervention for those conditions, “unfortunate”. And to those who are going to jump in with the “pregnancy is not a disease” line. Some complications of pregnancy** do **constitute grave risk to life - whether these should be termed diseases or not, is a matter of semantics.

The problem is not that treatment is given to avoid lawsuits, the pertinent question would be, if the patient dies (a distinct possibility) how could a doctor live with himself for failing to treat? This is the very reason theologians wrestled with this issue and applied the principle of double effect. Long ago, it was considered immoral to act before the tube had ruptured and lives were sometimes lost because of waiting. Even today, not all theologians agree. Some Catholics apply the principle of double effect to the use of Methotrexate as well as to surgery. Yet others would argue against Methotrexate in this condition, but would allow it for cancer in a pregnant woman; the argument being that though death to the fetus would result in both cases, the intent differs.

This is a complex, grey area especially since technology changes at a rapid pace. My thoughts are that the last word has not been said on this topic, by the Church or the medical establishment.

 

[jean8]

Hi everyone. I could use some help and fast! This person on another forum is arguing that abortion is not murder during the case of the removal of an infected fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy because the aim is to remove the fetus and not the tube. Technically she is correct. If they can remove the fetus and save the tube, they will do so so therefore the aim of the operation is to remove the fetus and is thereby a direct abortion. I told her that all direct abortions are murders but I didn’t know what else to say. What do I say?

First, I want to say any attemp to remove a “BABY” from the ‘womb’ is killing the child. You can use all of the medical terms and Latin words you want, but clear and simple, It;s alive and it’s a baby! God put the baby there. See Ps.139:13-16
Re: ectopic preganacy? it’s something a doctor must decide, often to save the mother’s life.
Abortion is murder. Tell her that!

jean8

 

[Donna_P]

Hi everyone. I could use some help and fast! This person on another forum is arguing that abortion is not murder during the case of the removal of an infected fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy because the aim is to remove the fetus and not the tube. Technically she is correct. If they can remove the fetus and save the tube, they will do so so therefore the aim of the operation is to remove the fetus and is thereby a direct abortion. I told her that all direct abortions are murders but I didn’t know what else to say. What do I say?

Dear Holly,

May God be with you.

I am on the board of a life care center. I deal with questions like these all the time.

The question is intent.

In an ectopic pregnancy, BOTH mother and child will die. Taking out the fallopian tube will save the mother. It is the ONLY thing that can be done. the EFFECT of doing this is that the child dies. it is NOT the INTENT of the operation to kill the child.

When medicine progresses to the point where they can also take that child and implant him in the womb, then that will be the morally right thing to do. We are not at that point now.

One final point. BOTH mother and child are equally important. Abortion (which has the ONLY intent on killing the child) puts the mother as more important.

Two place you can go for more information:

www.abortionfacts.com

www.deathroe.com

God bless you!

 

[gardenswithkids]

…In an ectopic pregnancy, BOTH mother and child will die. Taking out the fallopian tube will save the mother. It is the ONLY thing that can be done. the EFFECT of doing this is that the child dies. it is NOT the INTENT of the operation to kill the child…

Nicely explained and thank you for your prolife work. I want to add a small correction to what you wrote, as there are different medical treatments for ectopic pregnancy. Some doctors treat ectopic pregnancy by directly killing the embryo in the fallopian tube while leaving the fallopian tube in the mother’s body. Such direct killing of the child is immoral, while, (to my understanding of Catholic ethics), the indirect death of the child that occurs secondary to removal of a defective body part that threatens the life of the mother is not immoral. As you and others wrote and linked other threads and AAA, removal of a tube which is about to rupture is not considered an abortion; it is the removal of a defective body part. However, directly killing a child within the mother is as some doctors do for ectopic pregnancy is NOT a moral choice.

Also an aside that might help comfort those who face such issues, a baby who is removed along with the tube from his/her mother can be baptized. I heard of one very prominent Catholic woman who told how she had the doctor baptize her baby when she lost both her fallopian tube and baby to an ectopic pregnancy. The doctor can remove the child alive child and unharmed, and then the child dies very pre-mature death outside the mother. (The child would also die pre-maturely if left inside the mother when her tube bursts, and a burst tube poses a life-threatening risk to the mother’s life.) I read a beautiful story in a pro-life pamphet that accompanied a photograph of a child in the sack that was removed in a ectopic pregnancy. The doctor was quoted as saying that while every photograph he has seen of embryos show dead embryos, he witnessed a baby who was very much alive and animated. I tried to do a quick search to find that pamphlet on the internet but couldn’t find it.

God bless anyone who goes through such a great loss. May God comfort you and hold your baby in His hand.

 

[hasikelee]

Hi everyone. I could use some help and fast! This person on another forum is arguing that abortion is not murder during the case of the removal of an infected fallopian tube due to an ectopic pregnancy because the aim is to remove the fetus and not the tube. Technically she is correct. If they can remove the fetus and save the tube, they will do so so therefore the aim of the operation is to remove the fetus and is thereby a direct abortion. I told her that all direct abortions are murders but I didn’t know what else to say. What do I say?

If the fallopian tube is inflamed, infected and the mother is experiencing life-threatening symptoms, then removing the fallopian tube would fall under the principle of double effect and would not be an abortion.

A procured abortion is the direct, planned killing of a pre-born human. In the case of ectopic pregnancies, if another option existed, the pre-born human would not die from the surgery of removing the fallopian tube.

The reason this situation has not been resolved with both the mother and child living is due to our restricted technology. Scientists have recently been trying to find a way to remove the human from the fallopian tube and implant the little guy in the uterus, thus saving the mother, the fallopian tube and the child.

Incidentally, there are other methods that can be used during an ectopic pregnancy which would be abortion. For example, the doctor might have the woman take abortifacent drugs to target the zygote in the fallopian tube. In this case, it would be abortion as the direct intent is to target and kill the human.

 

[Drlit]

GOOD LORD!

I too believe that abortion is murder, but Ectopic pregnancy is not an issue. Have you ever seen a woman whose ectopic pregnancy has reached the point where her tube has burst is is pouring blood into her abdominal cavity?

My wife had one. I would never want to see her or anyone die that way! Try to understand it this way – the child has already been called back to God, all that remains now is to save the mother from an agonizing and gruesome death.

 

[seekerz]

GOOD LORD!

I too believe that abortion is murder, but Ectopic pregnancy is not an issue. Have you ever seen a woman whose ectopic pregnancy has reached the point where her tube has burst is is pouring blood into her abdominal cavity?

My wife had one. I would never want to see her or anyone die that way! Try to understand it this way – the child has already been called back to God, all that remains now is to save the mother from an agonizing and gruesome death.

I’m sorry for your loss. This is one of the topics which sometimes disturbs me too because many people are very dogmatic about it even if they actually understand the condition very little.

Actually there is very little practical difference between the methods used to treat ectopic pregnancy because, despite the best intentions, surgical intervention is the immediate cause of death of the fetus. No responsible doctor waits for tube damage (since it can’t be accurately measured or predicted), so the “diseased organ” theory is in many cases just that - theory. Most women (except in very early cases) get treated immediately on diagnosis: tubal damage or no tubal damage because waiting is just too risky.

There are simply some conditions where only the mother can be saved. It’s the same with an inevitable abortion (a type of miscarriage) where the baby may still be alive but where death is considered inevitable. If there is much blood loss, causing risk to the mother’s life: a D&C is considered permissible even if the baby will surely suffer direct physical harm from the procedure. We don’t ask that the woman’s womb be removed or that she bleed to death.

Personally, some situations are best left to the patient and doctor with due regard for the general teachings of our Church, simply because the nuances of an individual situation is best understood only by those parties.

 

[hasikelee]

Actually there is very little practical difference between the methods used to treat ectopic pregnancy because, despite the best intentions, surgical intervention is the immediate cause of death of the fetus. No responsible doctor waits for tube damage (since it can’t be accurately measured or predicted), so the “diseased organ” theory is in many cases just that - theory. Most women (except in very early cases) get treated immediately on diagnosis: tubal damage or no tubal damage because waiting is just too risky.

This is incorrect information. Ectopic pregnancies can be observed very carefully and found early in the pregnancy by determining the rise and fall of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

If an ectopic pregnancy is suspected early on in the pregnancy, (keeping in mind this is only determined through the levels of hCG present in the woman’s urine) the doctor will inject methotexate to deliberately kill the developing human.

Other methods include laparoscopy or salpinostromy. Again, note the cases where the woman has a living, developing human determined to be in the fallopian tube via hormone levels (this can include progesterone, too.)

These are entirely different cases from a woman requesting emergency medical care due to extreme pain and bleeding, where an immediate diagnosis is made and the method is to remove the fallopian tube as soon as possible to preserve her life.

It is also an entirely different case when the developing human can be determined to have already died and thus the intent is to remove dead tissue to prevent further complications.

Interestingly, even as the maternal death rate is decreasing, ectopic pregnancies are increasing at a rather astronomical rate in America. Besides my pet theories, this could also be the case of the doctor not wanting to wait to see if the human will move out of the fallopian tube, encouraging the woman to instead kill the human as soon as possible. Thus, pregnancies that might have advanced normally on their own are now being diagnosed and terminated under the label of ectopic.

Edit to add that the risk of experiencing an ectopic pregnancy rises if you have:

STDS
PID
endometriosis
used ovulation medicines
past ectopic pregnancies

and if you are over 35

 

[seekerz]

This is incorrect information.

What is your basis for making that statement? You did see that I made an exception for very early ectopic pregnancies. The fact is, many are found when they are no longer at the early stage. HCG levels can be used to follow the condition but there exists no test that can accurately measure tubal damage as to when it starts and how much there is, neither is there any way to accurately predict when and with what amount of hemorrhage a tube will rupture. For these reasons, except in the early stages, intervention is taken to avoid catastrophe.

This whole ectopic debate is mainly theoretical. When it all comes down to it, the particular woman’s situation dictates what should be done.

There really isn’t the great difference between methods that some people think. How is using Methotrexate with the intent of killing the primitive placenta which is damaging the tube (effect on baby supposedly incidental), any different from cutting out the tube which (supposedly incidentally) has the direct effect of shutting off the baby’s oxygen and blood supply?

It’s time to stop perpetuating misunderstandings that make people guilty about their medical decisons. Incidentally, these misunderstandings include your implication that the rate of ectopics is increasing because of doctor’s decisions. Statistically, the rate of ectopics have increased with the rate of STD’s.

PS: Having re-read your post, I wonder whether you are implying that intervention is only justified *after * rupture has occurred or the baby is confirmed to be dead? If so, my understanding is that a vast majority of Catholic theologians disagree.

 

[hasikelee]

What is your basis for making that statement? You did see that I made an exception for very early ectopic pregnancies. The fact is, many are found when they are no longer at the early stage. HCG levels can be used to follow the condition but there exists no test that can accurately measure tubal damage as to when it starts and how much there is, neither is there any way to accurately predict when and with what amount of hemorrhage a tube will rupture. For these reasons, except in the early stages, intervention is taken to avoid catastrophe.

This whole ectopic debate is mainly theoretical. When it all comes down to it, the particular woman’s situation dictates what should be done.

There really isn’t the great difference between methods that some people think. How is using Methotrexate with the intent of killing the primitive placenta which is damaging the tube (effect on baby supposedly incidental), any different from cutting out the tube which (supposedly incidentally) has the direct effect of shutting off the baby’s oxygen and blood supply?

It’s time to stop perpetuating misunderstandings that make people guilty about their medical decisons. Incidentally, these misunderstanding includes your implication that the rate of ectopics is increasing because of doctor’s decisions. Statistically, the rate of ectopics have increased with the rate of STD’s.

It is not a misunderstanding to state that injecting methotrexate very early in the pregnancy is a direct attempt to kill the developing human. It is what it is.

The case to be distinguished is when the human is already dead, at which time methotrexate can be used to “jumpstart” the miscarriage process and the breakdown and reabsorption of dead tissue.

Furthermore, it is not an implication (my implications were left unsaid as they are for another topic) to state that early diagnosis leads to higher rates of recorded ectopic pregnancies even as that decreases the maternal death rate. If anything, I thought that would be the agreeable portion in my post for you.

Whether a person feels guilty over their choices or not, the teaching of directly killing another human isn’t going to change to assuage feelings over a decision of when to kill a human.

 

[seekerz]

It is not a misunderstanding to state that injecting methotrexate very early in the pregnancy is a direct attempt to kill the developing human. It is what it is.

The case to be distinguished is when the human is already dead, at which time methotrexate can be used to “jumpstart” the miscarriage process and the breakdown and reabsorption of dead tissue.

This is just one understanding of the intent of those (including some Catholic doctors and institutions, complete with “double effect” justification) who use Methotrexate. If the “intent” is crucial to the morality of the act, then why not let the users define their intent? If the intent is to destroy the trophoblast (primitive placenta) how is that any worse or better than intending to remove an organ which may or may not be “diseased”? Seems like both sides have worked it out so that their “intent” is not to kill the baby; regardless, fetal death is the end result.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with either approach (Methotrexate or surgery) but not against saving the only life that can be saved. I would just bring my anguish before God and ask His mercy in such a situation. It just seems wrong to be so dogmatic on an issue that not even all theologians are in agreement about.

 

[kmarie08]

i may be repeating something that everyone has said but i wanted to lay down clearly the 4 necessary components for the principle of double effect to be legitimate. i am in my senior year of catholic high school and i have a great religion teacher. double effect is extremely clarifying and useful for many situations.

ACT- removal of fallopian tube
GOOD EFFECT- preservation of the mother’s life
BAD EFFECT- the death of the baby in the fallopian tube

(1.) the ACT must be morally good or neutral (the removal of the fallopian tube is a surgical procedure that is not inherently evil or inherently good- it is morally neutral)

(2.) the GOOD EFFECT (the saving of the mother’s life) is equal to the BAD EFFECT (the death of the unborn baby). The mother’s and baby’s lives are of equal value, therefore the effects are equal.

(3.) the BAD EFFECT may be foreseen, but not intended. the fallopian tube is not being removed to abort the baby, but to save the mother’s life. it is not a direct attack on the life of the baby, but the baby’s death is a sad and unwanted side effect.

(4.) the GOOD EFFECT must come from the ACT, not as a result of the BAD EFFECT. the preservation of the mother’s life comes from the removal of the fallopian tube, not from the baby’s death.

IF THE BABY IN THE FALLOPIAN TUBE IS KILLED BY ANYTHING BESIDES THE REMOVAL OF THE FALLOPIAN TUBE, IT IS A DIRECT ABORTION AND IT IS NOT OK. double effect DOES NOT work in that situation. if you inject something into the womb that will kill the baby, it is getting rid of the baby instead of getting rid of the problem.

This is the same thing for women who find out they have cancer while they are pregnant- it is legitimate for them to begin chemo to attack the cancer, although the side effect may be the death of their unborn baby.

does that all make sense? i feel like it needed some clarification.

 

[allhers]

That made perfect sense, thank you!

 

[kmarie08]

you’re welcome!

oh, so basically to the person who asked the original question:

removal of the fallopian tube is homicide, not murder. we know that the baby is a human life, but there is no intention of killing or any aggressive act directly against the baby. this is the difference between homicide and murder.

for anyone who does not know: homicide is a morally neutral act. if anyone needs catechism references i can find them for you.

however, you may let the person you were having this discussion with know that burning the baby with saline solution or vacuuming out its tiny body parts IS an act of aggression with the intent to kill, making it murder of an innocent. (so just make sure she knows abortion is still wrong )