Abortion & Ectopic pregnancies?

Question

Earlier some people stated that.

1) removing an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion
2) ectopic pregnancies are the ONLY justification for what most refer to as an abortion because there is a 0% chance of survival

Do they realize that there ARE cases that an ectopic pregnancy results in a live birth? and that there are other conditions such as a some partial molar pregnancies that cause maternal AND fetal DEATH?

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu_QOnjtKoR…

So how can some one be 100% against abortion except for ectopic pregnancy, but not with other life threatening conditions even when the baby is proven to not be viable, and the mothers death is unavoidable without intervention?

do you see removal of an ectopic pregnancy as abortion (justified or not) ?

Do you believe the 100% of ectopic pregnancies are non-viable?

Do you think the rarity of live births from ectopic pregnancies is due to the high termination rate?

Do you think that ectopic is the ONLY justification for what most refer to as an abortion?

Additional Details

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu74DnDtKJU…

I KNOW they are not the same. I had a molar pregnancy and terminated.

I also understand the risk to the mother during an ectopic pregnancy

I am just curious why some say they are against abortion unless it's ectopic, even when there are equally dangerous conditions and do the same people know that ectopics aren't 100% non-viable. Some have resulted in live births.

I would never encourage a women to endanger her life. That's why I chose to terminate. I wanted to live.

TLC did a series where they followed a women who chose not to terminate her ectopic pregnancy. The showed ehr DR visits and c-section birth of a live baby. She had to have a hysterectomy, but the baby did live.

There was also a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy where the baby died and her body coated it is calcium.

I'll try to find some more links.

it was in her ovary.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

i don't classify that as abortion. no.

Health is all about playing the odds. Odds are that an etopic pregnancy will kill you and the baby. So the safe bet is to terminate the pregnancy.

As for other reasons to 'justify' an abortion, I don't need them. I prefer it if ppl don't abort, and nvr would myself, but i think women should have the choice. It's not for me to judge- or therefore justify- abortions.

Answer 2

Do you understand that if an ectopic pregnancy progresses the un-viable embryo will grow until the fallopian tube ruptures, leading to internal hemorrhage that will most likely kill the woman? Why kill both Mom and Baby? And a molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy are two different conditions.

Answer 3

I think most people have just not heard of molar pregnancies.

Answer 4

Hi, I hope I can help clear this up.

Unfortunately, people who are 100% pro-life (as I am) say that they are against abortion except in cases of an ectopic pregnancy, because both lives are equal. They mean well, but they are confused. If the baby isn't directly killed, it isn't an abortion. Unfortunately, in most cases, the child IS directly killed and it is an abortion.

Let's say there's a burning building. There are four floors. On the fourth floor, everything is engulfed in flames. It's impossible to get to the people up there, and no way to save them. So, attention is turned to the first, second and third floors while those in the fourth floor, sadly, must perish because there is no way to get to them.

Is this murder? Of course not. It's not intending or directly causing the death of the people. We cannot do the impossible. However, directly causing their deaths by, say, setting the fire or not trying to get to them if it's possible, is murder or involvement in it.

Now, the case of a mother and child in an ectopic pregnancy:

I will quote from a forum where this was discussed. Note the emphasis on "intention," which is true:

"In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.

The second method is the adminstration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong."

Also, removing the tissue to which the embryo is attached and then puncturing the sac the child is in would be an abortion, and this is wrong. The child must die naturally.

And this is an excellent response by a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy:

"I just had an ectopic pregnancy that thankfully resolved itself without my needing surgery. These are the options my supposedly pro-life doctor gave me (keep in mind that I was not in immediate danger of bleeding out, unlike many women who present with ectopic pregnancy) :

1) Wait it out-- since I wasn't in immediate danger, I had the option of resting and waiting to see if the miscarriage would progress naturally on its own, and my body would then heal itself. I had strict instructions to come to the ER immediately, should I have any symptoms of dangerous levels of internal bleeding.

2) Go ahead and do surgery to remove the tube (or part of it), to avoid putting your life in possible danger, sort of like a preemptive strike

3) Take the methotrexate

Of these three, in my case, the only moral choice was waiting it out. The second choice would only be morally acceptable if I was in immediate and certain danger of bleeding out without surgery (I wasn't, praised be to Jesus). The third choice is never acceptable, for reasons already stated by other posters.

I had regular blood tests to make sure my blood count never dipped, and to test my pregnancy hormone levels to make sure I was really having a miscarriage (the doc wanted to be certain the baby hadn't implanted on an organ outside my uterus and continued to grow, for instance).

So, contrary to what a lot of people may think, it is possible to avoid an abortion even the case of ectopic pregnancy. Intentional abortion is NEVER acceptable, a direct attack on the baby is NEVER acceptable. Also, I think I am correct in stating that by the time the surgery becomes necessary to save the mother, the tube itself has already ruptured (therefore causing the excessive bleeding), and this most always itself causes the death of the baby."

I am with the woman I just quoted from.

You make an excellent point about children who have survived ectopic pregnancies, and I want to tell you that it has always been the intention of my husband and me to let an ectopic pregnancy continue and not interfere in any way until it is sure that the baby has already died, even if that means excruciating pain for me and possible death. We discussed this in early pregnancy and have discussed it again as we hope for more babies. I could never live with myself if I let anyone remove a child from my body; I would want nature to take its course and live my life knowing that I did not let my baby be removed from my body, and I certainly wouldn't cause the baby's death by taking methotrexate. Death isn't the worst thing; rejecting my own baby to save myself would be. I could never do it. Besides, as you say, in the most extreme cases, these children do survive. It is so rare, but still, I would rather leave my fate and my child's fate in God's hands and take it from there.

Interesting post. I expect to have many thumbs down, but that's okay. I stand by what I've said. We never know what miracles God may perform, and besides that, it's not natural for a mother to kill her own baby.

Source(s):

mama of a baby boy
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.ph…

Answer 5

a molar pregnancy is NOT an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is defined as a pregnancy that implants itself in an area other than the uterus. With a molar pregnancy the embryo implants itself in the uterus and doesn't develop into a fetus. It develops as a patch of masses. I am sorry to say this but you really need to look into your facts. 110% an ectopic pregnancy WILL NOT result in a live birth. An ectopic pregnancy is a medical emergency and needs to be removed right away. If the embryo implanted into one of the tubes and it ruptures the mother could die. If there were any chance that the embryo would develop into a fetus then doctors wouldn't be rushing you into the operating room to remove the embryo. Trust me. The doctors thought I had an ectopic pregnancy, it was inconclusive and rushed me into the OR and operated. There wasn't an ectopic pregnancy and it turned out the baby was in the uterus just to small to see. Also I work in the medical field as an MA I know what I am talking about. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT a voluntary abortion.


ETA: don't believe everything you read on the internet. Talk to your doctor if your confused.

Source(s):

25w1d

Answer 6

In medical terms removal of an ectopic and the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy are not related to abortion. The procedure to remove an ectopic,especially from a tube are invasive and more similar to that of removal of an ovarian cyst in that it often includes salpingectomy, or removal of the tube. For women to draw this parallel is overly emotional.

Outside of maternal mortality, normal fetal development is unlikely in the case of a tubal ectopic pregancy. In a molar pregnancy, it's not an embryo at all. It's potentially cancerous mass. Of course it needs to go.

Also, keep in mind that ectopic just means outside the uterus. It could be tubal, cervical, abdominal. The story above doesn't say where the embryo implanted. That's a key bit of information.