Ethics of Ectopic Pregnancies & Abortion / Educational Video. Public domain text. All images from Fair Use. “What About an Ectopic Pregnancy?” The abortion exception for the life of the mother is the exception that most commonly seduces the sincere pro-lifer. The scenario in which this exception is most frequently packaged is an ectopic pregnancy, which is when the embryo attaches somewhere inside the mother’s body in a place other than the inner lining of the uterus. It is argued that in an ectopic pregnancy, an abortion must be performed in order to save the mother’s life. What is rarely realized is that there are several cases in the medical literature where abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived! There are no cases of ectopic pregnancies in a fallopian tube surviving, but several large studies have confirmed that time and patience will allow for spontaneous regression of the tubal ectopic pregnancy the vast majority of the time. So chemical or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not always necessary to save the mother’s life after all. However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mother’s symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mother’s life. The procedure to remove the ectopic pregnancy may not kill the unborn child at all, because the unborn child has likely already deceased by the time surgery because necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life, and the death of the unborn baby is unavoidable and unintentional. A chemical abortion with a medicine called methotrexate is often recommended by physicians to patients with early tubal ectopic pregnancies, when the baby may still be alive, to decrease the chances of a surgical alternative being necessary later, but we have found this to be an unnecessary risk to human life. We offer the following true case to demonstrate this point. One patient was diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy by her obstetrician, and he informed her that they were fortunate to have made the diagnosis early and that she should have a methotrexate abortion. The patient was pro-life, and did not want to take the medicine, but the physician insisted. The baby was not going to survive, he argued, and a chemical abortion now could prevent the need for a surgical procedure later. The chemical abortion would lessen her chances of a rupture of her fallopian tube and subsequent life-threatening hemorrhage. The chemical abortion was also better at preserving future fertility than surgical removal of the ectopic pregnancy later. Feeling like she had no other reasonable alternative, she took the methotrexate. However, there was a complication. Two weeks later, she still had vaginal bleeding and pelvic discomfort. A repeat ultrasound confirmed the physician’s worst fears: his patient was pregnant with twins — one in the fallopian tube, and one in the uterus! He missed the uterine pregnancy in his ultrasound examination, and that baby was dying from his prescription. Holding off surgery and watchful waiting in this case might have resulted in spontaneous resolution of the tubal pregnancy or would have required surgical removal of the tubal pregnancy when the embryo was likely to be dead, but in both cases the uterine pregnancy would probably have survived. Unfortunately, the chemical abortion killed both babies, much to the dismay of this young pro-life woman. It is only ethical to remove the tubal pregnancy if spontaneous resolution does not occur after watchful waiting and if the physician is 100% certain that there are no twins. At this point, the embryo in the fallopian tube is likely to be dead and, even if not, the death is unavoidable and unintentional, and the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand. The Association of Pro-Life Physicians
5063 Dresden Court t Zanesville, Ohio 43701.
Duration : 0:4:34
[youtube 3lduzgSD1yg]
Mail this post
Comments
DORAMARIE, no, you …
DORAMARIE, no, you are incorrect. The video (if you watched it) gives a case history of where a “uterine twin” was killed in doing so. Also, spontaneous resolution — as discussed in the video — is quite common. Remember, you are dealing here with a human being — not a thing.
Not always …
Not always necessary, maybe but why take he chance!
Ectopic pregnancies should be terminated as rapidly as possible!
starrynightxskies, …
starrynightxskies, no, you are incorrect. I am amazed how often so-called pro-choicers obviously attempt to objectify the unborn baby. The unborn baby does have a fetal state, this is true, but the unborn baby never stops being a human being. For you to say to the contrary, is deliberate ignorance. When is the last time you heard a pregnant woman, say, “I feel my fetus kicking me?”
I never said it …
I never said it wasn’t murder. I do think it’s murder but it’s the killing of a fetus not of an acutal human being that can speak for it’s own self and can defend it’s self. A fetus cannot fully function( breathe) without the mother and acutal human being can. There is a difference in “killing” a fetus and killing an acutal human being.
starrynightxskies, …
starrynightxskies, the unborn baby in its fetal state is always a human being and a person. Your attempt to dehumanize and objectify the unborn baby as rationaization for murder is obvious.
Medically it’s a …
Medically it’s a fetus. The mother can call the fetus inside of her whatever she wishes.
Fetus- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan
Child-a person between birth and full growth
supervanillabears, …
supervanillabears, if a “fetus”, as you claim, is not legally alive, then why do abortionists seek to kill her/him? You argument makes no sense. An unborn baby is a child of the mother and father. Just ask a pregnant woman if the baby inside her is her child.
Calling your fetus …
Calling your fetus your child is a matter of personal preference. A fetus is not legally alive.
starrynightxskies, …
starrynightxskies, have you ever heard an expecting mother say, “Hey, I feel my fetus kicking!. No, you have not. The expecting mother says, “Hey, I feel my BABY kicking!”. The mother knows what she is talking about.
Theres a difference …
Theres a difference between a fetus and a child..
richardfanx3, …
richardfanx3, adoption is a moral option to murdering your own child. Live and let live. You do not know the future of any child. The future is not yours to see. Murdering an innocent child is never justified.
And then there are …
And then there are the kids who will NEVER get adopted. How is abortion selfish? If I can’t handle a kid, why would I put me AND the child through all the pain if I didn’t have to?
I’d never put my child up for adoption and have them deal with getting a strange family or never getting adopted.
richardfanx3, …
richardfanx3, abortion is used as birth-control all the time. If birth control pills and abortifacients fail — then abortion is used to achieve what the selfish person(s) wants. You admit that you would get an abortion — abortion is the murder of your own child. If you do not want to get pregnant, then do not engage in sexual relations with men. There are thousands of parents waiting in line to adopt a child.
Um, I’m pro-choice …
Um, I’m pro-choice and abortion is rarely used as birth control. I would get an abortion if I accidentally got pregnant now because I can’t handle a child (not enough money, don’t even know how to take care of a kid, etc.) and I wouldn’t put it up for adoption because there’s already thousands of children waiting to be adopted and even more who never will be. I don’t want to bring a child into the world that I can’t take care of.
richardfanx3, as …
richardfanx3, as the video points out, having a doctor monitor the situation is recommended. As the video explains, spontaneous regression is common and eliminates the need for surgery. If spontaneous regression does not occur, then surgery can be performed with the knowledge that everything was done to NOT intentionally and deliberately take the life of the baby. Pro-choicers love to distort this argument in order to justify their use of abortion as birth control.
But why is it worth …
But why is it worth the risk? I’d rather have the fetus die and the mother live than risk both of them dying, wouldn’t you?