Medically Neccessary Abortion?

[bugz2007]

Interesting. I’ve never heard of an embryo being referred to as an infection. Unfortunately, the resulting choice is: lose both, or lose the baby and save the mother. Not a nice situation either way. Call it what you will, but the baby is certainly aborted.

Perhaps you are correct in your calling such abortion. However, perhaps you are only considering the usual “treatment” of an ectopic pregnancy, which is the abortion of the baby, though it seems that many like to call this “removal of the pregnancy.”

What many here were referring to was a treatment method where the solution was not to remove the baby, thus directly ending it’s life, but to remove the tube where that baby is located. Such a case allows for double effect. It is a grave evil to abort a child, but removing an organ is morally neutral. The unfortunate side effect would be the probable loss of that valuable young life, but this would not be the intention. The desired outcome of removing a fallopian tube prone to damage (in this case, because the presence of a growing child would stretch it to bursting) would be the survival of the mother.

We must be careful not to confuse abortion (the act of intentionally ending a pregnancy either through surgical methods or by the removal of an embryo or fetus) with other unfortunate circumstances.

And yes, it would be absolutely wonderful if we could soon find a way to transfer the location of the child to the uterus and continue the pregnancy.

 

[sodak]

Perhaps you are correct in your calling such abortion. However, perhaps you are only considering the usual “treatment” of an ectopic pregnancy, which is the abortion of the baby, though it seems that many like to call this “removal of the pregnancy.”

What many here were referring to was a treatment method where the solution was not to remove the baby, thus directly ending it’s life, but to remove the tube where that baby is located. Such a case allows for double effect. It is a grave evil to abort a child, but removing an organ is morally neutral. The unfortunate side effect would be the probable loss of that valuable young life, but this would not be the intention. The desired outcome of removing a fallopian tube prone to damage (in this case, because the presence of a growing child would stretch it to bursting) would be the survival of the mother.

We must be careful not to confuse abortion (the act of intentionally ending a pregnancy either through surgical methods or by the removal of an embryo or fetus) with other unfortunate circumstances.

And yes, it would be absolutely wonderful if we could soon find a way to transfer the location of the child to the uterus and continue the pregnancy.

Good points.

 

[ChristianWAB]

This is really a “how do I answer this in a concise and Catholic way?” sort of question.

How does one explain that abortion is reprehensible when there is a chance the mother could die to give sustain and/or birth the child?

I suppose I just assume it’s reprehensible.

Anyone have any answers?

Nowadays, Americans really shouldn’t be using that excuse because the sheer VOLUME of abortions is vastly larger than the amount of abortions done for that particular reason.

My wife doesn’t believe that her life is any more valuable than that of a fetus growing within her, so even if there were a danger, she KNOWS that God is greater than all of the doctors this country has to offer.

She would carry the baby for better or for worse, remaining steadfastly in prayer and submitting to the will of God.

Then again, how many women in this country actually have that kind of faith in God, right?

 

[marietta]

C2K2:

In your post # 3, you ask:

“From my understanding there are not any conditions where the mother would die if the child is carried to term. With C sections being common place and prenatal care being very good what “condition” is there that can only be cured by a direct abortion?”

Where my daughter works, a woman came in for a medically-indicated abortion because, with a double uterus with an incomplete septum, she had conceived twins, one on the left and the other, as far as ultrasound showed, bridging the septum. This kind of condition is deadly for the mother.

These things do happen. Not very frequently, but they do.

marietta

 

[sodak]

Perhaps the language that people are saying is that abortions are not permitted, but sometimes during a medical procedure to save the mother’s life, the baby is unfortunately aborted.

But I agree also that with the sheer volume of abortions, these procedures are probably a tiny fraction.

 

[Nan_S]

Tubal pregnancy. There is no chance for survival for the mother OR the baby. The only choice is to abort the baby to save the mother, or else they both die.

This is the only instance that I know of, but it does occur.

If a doctor removes the fallopian tube with a still-living baby inside, the baby should be immediately baptized and treated with all human dignity, even though it will not survive.

Use of an abortifacent drug such as methotrexate, in an attempt to abort the baby but save the fallopian tube, is a direct abortion. This is NOT permitted.

There is an unfortunate presumption that an ectopic pregnancy always results in the mother bleeding to death, unless it is surgically removed.

That’s not always the case:

abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=4961947

There are other documented cases where the tube ruptured, the pregnancy continued outside the womb, and a healthy baby was born. They’re rare, but they do happen.

 

[sodak]

If a doctor removes the fallopian tube with a still-living baby inside, the baby should be immediately baptized and treated with all human dignity, even though it will not survive.

Agreed. I thought this would be taken for granted, but perhaps not.

There is an unfortunate presumption that an ectopic pregnancy always results in the mother bleeding to death, unless it is surgically removed.

That’s not always the case:

abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=4961947

There are other documented cases where the tube ruptured, the pregnancy continued outside the womb, and a healthy baby was born. They’re rare, but they do happen.

I would like to see more documentation on this one, I’m wondering about a mis-diagnosis. In any event, I think that removing the tube is permissable and the logical choice.

 

[Nan_S]

Agreed. I thought this would be taken for granted, but perhaps not.

I would like to see more documentation on this one, I’m wondering about a mis-diagnosis. In any event, I think that removing the tube is permissable and the logical choice.

Here’s one where healthy triplets were born, twin girls inside the womb and their brother outside the womb. C-section birth, of course. The ectopic pregnancy was missed because everyone was looking at the two girls. The mother experienced a great deal of pain and bleeding around the 10th week, which was actually the tube rupturing, and the doctors were mystified because they could see no reason for it. Later they discovered the third baby.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990911/ai_n14253297

The article states that about 60 to 100 live births from ectopic pregnancies are known to have survived, and some 7,000 ectopic preganacies are terminated world-wide every year. In this litigous society, wherein the c-section rate is skyrocketing and premature birth with it (mostly due to induced labors and “precautionary” c-sections), the automatic presumption is that any ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening, therefore all ectopic pregnancies should be terminated. Sad.

 

[sodak]

I would like to know the death rate for mothers with tubal pregnancies. We’ll never know that, due to difficulties in obtaining that kind of information world wide.

Yes, it’s a shame that there are these pregnancies and that so many are terminated. Given the odds, I can’t say I can blame the women who undergo this, and this procedure is permissable by current Church teachings.

 

[ghaybyers1]

… The mother experienced a great deal of pain and bleeding around the 10th week, which was actually the tube rupturing…

I think that this is the main reason that people automatically assume ectopic pregnancies need to be aborted asap. The unfortunate truth is that 25% of maternal mortality in the first trimester is due to ruptures related to ectopic pregnancy. (AAFP) Internal bleeding and infection is really not something that should be messed around with.

However, seeing as hormonal birth control and a rise in sti’s are seen as some common factors for a disposition towards ectopic pregnancies, there is even more practical reasoning for chastity beyond the scriptural.

Since the 1970’s, occurances of ectopic pregnancy have skyrocketed, and the simple answer of aborting is not going to cut it. There have been cases where ectopic pregnancies have been carried to term and both child and mother survived. However, it calls for an extreme amount of caution and medical supervision- something that comes with a huge price tag that the average family can’t necessarily afford. God always provides, but He doesn’t throw money down from the sky- it’s time that the governments of both Canada and the US buck up and support mothers in high risk pregnancies.

 

[sodak]

Everyone has a pet program they want supported. We have a thread going on right now about Universal Health Care…