by September 8th, 2009. Filed under: ectopic pregnancy.
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 ociation of Pro-Life Physicians
5063 Dresden Court t Zanesville, Ohio 43701.
Duration : 0:4:34
Filed under: ectopic pregnancy
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
RedboneLadyT, thank …
RedboneLadyT, thank you very much!
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
thanks for posting …
thanks for posting this awesome video.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
You shall not lie …
You shall not lie
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the JUDGEMENT:
whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,but by me
that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord SHAL BE SAVED
ARE YOU SAVED?
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Technically all …
Technically all they tell you is that everything will be fine, but later on a woman suffers from physical and psychological problems. Doctors wont tell you this because all they care about is the money just like them media and the government.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
djdeeinfrance, …
djdeeinfrance, thank you very much for your excellent comments — they will help others! regards…
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I was born due to …
I was born due to my mother not knowing she was still carrying a baby. She had just given birth to a dead baby. She even went back to work and, as she thought, was still having periods. She went bact to hospital and was told that she was still with child (me). I was adominal, so she had to have Caesarean, as I could not be born any other way! This happened in 1964, I am living proof! My mom is 83 now.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
APPOINTMENTS of Mr. …
APPOINTMENTS of Mr. OMOBA-ABORTION, 2008:
5th November: Rahm Emanuel (he has voted always against life)
19th November: Tom Daschle (he has voted always pro-abortion)
20th November: Down Johnsen (ex-director of NARAL, pro-abortionist organization)
24th November: Ellen Moran (ex-director of Emilys List, pro-abortionist organization)
30th November: Hillary Clinton (member of pro-abortion international)
10th December: Jeanne Lambrew (member of Planned Parenthood, pro-abortionist organization)
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
APPOINTMENTS of Mr. …
APPOINTMENTS of Mr. OMOBA-ABORTION, 2009:
5th January: Tim Kaine (pro-abortionist from Virginia)
6th January: Thomas Perrelli (lawyer of Terri Schiavo)
22nd January: personal agreement to Roe vs Wade (killed 50 million babies since 1973)
23rd January: 457 million dollars to pro-abortions organizations
26th January: James B. Steinberg (there is no limit for paying abortions)
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
obama = baby killer
obama = baby killer
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I know that I have …
I know that I have a negligent case but I have been through so much that I dont have the energy
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I had to be put …
I had to be put asleep while he did a scrape to remove the sac. Weeks later, Im still bleeding heavily and in pain, I go back to the doctor only to find out that he had missed the eptopic pregnancy and i had a baby in the tube. By this time my tube was severely damaged, I had to have it removed. I was devastated. How did he miss that?? Was I having twins or is it common in eptopic pregnancys for the sac to be in the uterus, Im so confused.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
This happened to me …
This happened to me…. I was having twins, I had one in the uterus and one in the tube. Mine happened the other way around bcus, Im not exactly sure what happened to be honest but I was bleeding heavily and in so much pain, the doctor did a scan and said that in my uterus I had an empty sack, he said that I had miscarried the baby.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
goldfishnut, in the …
goldfishnut, in the Principle of Double Effect, the death of the unborn is an unintended effect.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The double effect …
The double effect principle does not mean active intervention for an ectopic pregnancy is bad for reasons stated in my comments below. Like any medical procedure a patient and doctor must weigh the pros and cons of every situation and make the best decision based on information given at that moment in time.
If you wish to discuss this further please feel free to email me. Otherwise I am done responding here.
Kindest regards.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
goldfishnut, the …
goldfishnut, the difference? The Principle of Double Effect.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
interesting. so …
interesting. so then what is the difference? If you end it sooner than later you can potentially save the woman invasive surgery, as well as unneeded further (severe) pain and blood loss. You say above that it’s a just a difference of when the end of the pregnancy comes - naturally or medically. The reason methotrexate is given is because it is lower risk than surgery and by stopping the ectopic sooner it can prevent blood loss and maintain the tubes integrity and future fertility.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
goldfishnut, the …
goldfishnut, the video never states nor implies that spontaneous resolution means that the pregnancy “slipped into the uterus”. The video means that the unborn child is allowed to die a natural death, as opposed to the physician intentionally and deliberately killing the child. If this natural death does not occur, and the growth of the tubal pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, then, the physician — who has done everything he could - must then perform the necessary procedure.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Part of the problem …
Part of the problem with your defense is the meaning behind “spontaneous resolution” of the ectopic pregnancy. This doesnt mean the pregnancy slipped into the uterus. It means the pregnancy died early enough that it doesnt require surgical intervention. Either way not viable. The example given w/ the heterotopic pg isnt a case of why ectopic intervention is bad, it’s an example of why it’s SO IMPORTANT to look at the uterus AND ovaries AND check the hcg levels to take the appropriate action.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
goldfishnut, no, …
goldfishnut, no, with modern medicine, it is not life threatening to monitor an ectopic pregnancy for a reasonable period of time. Your numbers are not correct.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
What is a ” …
What is a “reasonable chance” ? It is life threatening to monitor a known ectopic pregnancy just waiting for her blood pressure to bottom out as a “sign” that the tubal pregnancy isn’t going to magically resolve. Every medical malpractice lawyer within a 100 mile radius would be salivating at the prospect of this happening on a regular basis. For every 1 million ectopic pregnancies, the 1 that MIGHT spontaneously resolve is not worth the life of the other 999,999 women.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
goldfishnut, the …
goldfishnut, the key here is intention. Once the physician has given spontaneous resolution a reasonable chance, then, as the video explains, the necessary procedure has to be performed — but only after the physician has done everything he could to not deliberately kill the baby without endangering the life of the mother. The physician, in this case, never deliberately wills the death of the baby, and has done everything he could to not kill the baby without endangering the life of the mother.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
It is very rare and …
It is very rare and the exception, not the rule, when an abdominal pregnancy goes to term. If you follow the cases that have gone to term (or close to it), the mothers don’t always make it because of hemorrhage from the placenta. Ectopic pregnancies spontaneously resolving are the very rare exception and not the rule. I have personally seen MANY that were beyond the beginning stages, none of which spontaneously resolved. With the human body, anything is possible but that doesn’t mean it’s likely
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
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.
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Not always …
Not always necessary, maybe but why take he chance!
Ectopic pregnancies should be terminated as rapidly as possible!
September 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
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?”