by August 15th, 2009. Filed under: ectopic pregnancy.
What About an Ectopic Pregnancy?
www.ProLifePhysicians.org
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 mothers 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 mothers 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 mothers life after all.
However, if through careful follow-up it is determined that the ectopic pregnancy does not spontaneously resolve and the mothers symptoms worsen, surgery may become necessary to save the mothers 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 becomes necessary. But even if not, the procedure is necessary to save the mothers 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 physicians 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.
Saving lives t Saving medicine
The ociation of Pro-Life Physicians
5063 Dresden Court t Zanesville, Ohio 43701
www.ProLifePhysicians.org
Duration : 0:6:17
Filed under: ectopic pregnancy
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
If you claim that …
If you claim that the sky is not a pig, you do not believe that the sky is a pig.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Saying “I don’t …
Saying “I don’t believe in God” does not presume that God exists. The presumption in this case is that you believe something.
If asked the question “What do you believe,” a person will not say “Well, I don’t believe this, and I don’t believe that.” He will answer “I believe this, and that.” Things are not defined by that which they are not.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Neither statement …
Neither statement says that you know for sure.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Good video! Thank …
Good video! Thank you
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
A similar scenario …
A similar scenario would be a parachute instructor “advising” the jumper on jumping off the bridge. It’s still more than likely going to kill him and the instructor knows this and disregards it because the jumper may pull through it.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The difference …
The difference isn’t about taking the risk. The deference is the advice GeerUp is expecting a trained medical professional who knows the risk adheres to the Hippocratic Oath. If he knowingly provides faulty advice that an ectopic pregnancy “rarely’ results in death of the mother, even if waited out, then he is choosing to violate the HO.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“Waiting” is an …
“Waiting” is an unsafe option. Can you be under medical supervision 24 hours a day, for the weeks it might take to “wait it out?” A woman I work with fainted at work, and had she not been rushed to the hospital, she would have bled to death from an ectopic pregnancy. Should she had been under medical supervision? We work with medical doctors…
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
dpr’s question …
dpr’s question should have been more specific…i love this guy lol.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The first statement …
The first statement is saying that you know for sure there is no God, and in the second statement you just dont know.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
you are right in …
you are right in that you answered his question. it was a stupid question however, dpr loves a good medical conundrum…..
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I actually think …
I actually think those are different statements and not just a difference of syntax. Its easier to seem them as the same because the idea of the sky being a pig is so absurd to our culture.
But saying “I don’t believe that the sky is a pig” just means that you don’t believe that it is a pig. While saying “I believe that the sky is not a pig” is you claiming that the sky is not a pig. They are different.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
the thing is, by …
the thing is, by the time it is evident that the mother is in certain danger the risks are already much higher than when she was just likely to be in danger
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Saying “I don’t …
Saying “I don’t believe in some god” presumes that the god exists and that the person takes the stance that they don’t.
Since the base stance is always the non-existence of any gods, because all religions must be taught, it is best to say “I don’t have any belief in a god” when a person doesn’t join a religion.
If a person is part of a religion and then leaves it is best for them to say “I don’t believe in that god anymore” or “I believe that this god doesn’t exist.”
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Well, I didn’t …
Well, I didn’t bring it up. lol, I just find it odd that most people will make up all source of scenarios to defend abortion, and little to support life.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Frankly, this is a …
Frankly, this is a ridiculous conversation. If you don’t have a brain the probability that you will live is 0. In fact, if you don’t have a brain, you’re essentially not alive. You cannot stimulate control a single bodily function, nor do you have the slightest capacity for thought. People who are brain dead retain a brain. It’s just not functioning in some aspects.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I don’t know, but …
I don’t know, but that’s no reason to abort the child. What if the child is able to live after all? We won’t know unless we allow the child a chance to live instead of considering death so quickly. As I said before, there are testimonies of adults who were brain dead, but miraculously came back to their senses; we have technology that can do many things. Bottom line, I see that most people are in favor of killing a disabled child than offering the babe a chance at life.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
What’s the …
What’s the difference between “I believe that there is no God” and “I don’t believe that there is a God?”
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Are you responding …
Are you responding to me, or someone else?
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
“I believe in no …
“I believe in no God.”
“I believe that there is no God.”
There is absolutely no difference between the two statements.
Saying “I don’t believe that the sky is a pig” means the exact same thing as saying “I believe that the sky is not a pig.” The only difference is in syntax, which is irrelevant to what you actually mean by the statement.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
That depends on …
That depends on ones opinion, doesn’t it?
I wager you pray to a god for various things. Am I right?
I, however feel that more can be accomplished by talking a short walk after a rainstorm. After all, cool air, recently cleaned up by the rain does a whole lot more then hoping in vain that a fictional character talkes to you in your mind.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
prayer is much much …
prayer is much much more that a stress reliever.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Maybe God provided …
Maybe God provided the Aspirin for you to take? Why do you have to be difficult? It doesn’t change the fact that He is your creator. Thus, you should respect Him as such, and not be ungrateful.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
CHildren have been …
CHildren have been born without a major part of the brain (they retain the parts necessary for basic physical capacities) The vast majority die, but a very small amount survive. However, if a child were to be born “without a brain” at all then there would be absolutely no chance of survival. How could necessary bodily functions be stimulated and controlled?
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Cirripedius, I have …
Cirripedius, I have to admit that I rarely agree with anything that Geerup says, but in this instance I almost side with him. I would never want to put another in danger, but others are willing risk takers. Is there a difference between a woman who wants an eptopic pregnanct watched for a little extra time to try and save a child she wants to have and someone who straps a parachute on themselves and fling themselves off a bridge or building? It is all a risk, and some choose to take it.
August 15th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Cirrepedius, I am …
Cirrepedius, I am not a medical professional as well. What I am saying is that if there is constant monitoring and study to this issue, not only does a womon striving to have a child get one more chance with the one she is carrying, but medicine can stand to learn more about the cause and cure if this spicific problem.
Geerup, Prayer, like chocolate (and I can add walking and meditation) can serve as a calming and centering activity, this can cause changes in attitude, and lower stress.