Ectopic Pregnancies

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Hey guys, long time no see.

I am in the middle of a not-so-nice debate with some folks I know on an animation forum about abortion, one has brought up the topic of Ectopic Pregnancies as cases for abortions. She claims that 2 out of every 100 pregnancies will be Ectopic.

Well, this seems like alot and I was wondering what I can learn about this? Because I have never heard of ectopic pregnancies in my life.

She basically did a hypothetical number experiment with this 'rule' of 2 out of 100

[quote]Considering above 80% of women get pregnant, let's do the math and use the population of Ireland, roughly 4,425,675 in 2008:

4,425,675/2 = 2,212,837 (half of the population will be women) x .8 = 1,770,270 will get pregnant once in their life. 35,406 of them will have an ectopic pregnancy. Are you willing to say these numbers are just freak occurrences?[/quote]

Any help guys?

[Cherie]

The only way to save a woman's life when there is an ectopic pregnancy is by removing the infection, and the unintended and unwanted result is the death of the baby. They are not trying to kill the baby.

From ALL.org via Judie Brown:

"Medical operations such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or the removal of an ectopic pregnancy are moral even under Catholic teaching and are not considered abortions. Such operations are justified by the “principle of double effect,” because the death of the child is an unintended effect of an operation independently justified to save the mother’s life. They do not involve the intentional and willful destruction of an unborn child. Physicians must make their best effort to save both patients, giving equal care to mother and child. They should never be given a license to intentionally kill either of them."


Ectopic pregnancies are on the rise, especially because of the rise in STDs, as leftover scar tissue from some STDs can lead to an ectopic pregnancy. (This is NOT to say that all ectopic pregnancies result from this, however!)

[CatherineM]

There are times that a necessary medical procedure has the unfortunate side affect of terminating a pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is a very serious thing. Let's say that a woman is found to have a tumor growing in her fallopian tube. The doctor would remove the tube to preserve the life of the mother, but have the unfortunate consequence of partially sterilizing the mom. The same for a man who has testicular cancer or prostate cancer. In saving the life, a sterilization may be an unfortunate consequence. With an ectopic pregnancy, the same occurs. A fetus developing in the fallopian tube puts the mother's life at serious risk. Removing the fallopian tube to save the mother's life also results in a termination of the pregnancy. The termination isn't the primary reason that the procedure is being done. There are women who suffer miscarriages because they are placed on life saving medication, but the primary purpose isn't to cause the miscarriage.

[Nihil Obstat]

I hope that medical technology advances to the point that an ectopic pregnancy could be re-implanted in the proper place after removal of the fallopian tube.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

Thanks guys, and CatherineM I hope you dont mind but I quoted you in my response to that other forum's thread, but I didnt say your username or where I got your post from.

[CatherineM]

If you think I'm worth quoting, I've got no problem with it.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 April 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1272300076' post='2100361']
I hope that medical technology advances to the point that an ectopic pregnancy could be re-implanted in the proper place after removal of the fallopian tube.
[/quote]
They're working on that, though I don't think they've been successful yet.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='26 April 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1272309476' post='2100513']
They're working on that, though I don't think they've been successful yet.
[/quote]
Certainly seems to be a realistic goal for the short to medium term future though, right?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='26 April 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1272309476' post='2100513']
They're working on that, though I don't think they've been successful yet.
[/quote]

I wonder what the success will mean for the abortion debate. Heck, even the attempt to save a child in the fallopian tube means that this is a child, not a mesh of tissues.

[tinytherese]

It reminds me of when people say that they are pro-life accept for when the life of the mother is in damger. In reality, ending esctopic pregnancies should not be referred to as an abortion.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 April 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1272300076' post='2100361']
I hope that medical technology advances to the point that an ectopic pregnancy could be re-implanted in the proper place after removal of the fallopian tube.
[/quote]


[quote name='tinytherese' date='26 April 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1272328953' post='2100664']
It reminds me of when people say that they are pro-life accept for when the life of the mother is in damger. In reality, ending esctopic pregnancies should not be referred to as an abortion.
[/quote]

Yea, this and Mirror syndrome would be incredibly traumatic. I think the abortion terminology is not accurate in either case. The baby unfortunately will die and it is a matter of saving the mom. At least in Mirror syndrome if the baby is not removed the Mother will likely follow suit.

[Nihil Obstat]

Another thing about ectopic pregnancies, if I understand correctly, is that the death of the baby is assured in any case, since there can be no nutrients supplied via the fallopian tube. At that point the moral path is to save the mother, as long as you don't directly kill the baby to do so.

[CatherineM]

Here's my question. If they have developed the technology to harvest human eggs, why can't they use the same technology to retrieve an embryo in the tube? At least some good could come out of IVF technology. I know the baby would probably not survive, but it would maintain the tube intact.

[Slappo]

I would like to add two things to this topic.

There are a few different procedures that can be done with ectopic pregnancies and not all of them are morally acceptable.

One of the procedures is to make an incision in the fallopian tube and remove the embryo. This would be an abortion. This would also cause scar tissue and an increased chance in ectopic pregnancies in the future.

Another procedure is to remove the entire tube. This would be similar to removing a cancerous uterus. This would be morally permissable.

Another procedure is to take a certain medication which will cause the degrading of the casing of the egg. This is morally questionable as we do not know if the casing around the egg is the mothers tissue or the embryo.


Also I have heard of succesful cases of removing the embryo and re-emplanting it in the uterus. I've also heard that this is illegal in the united states. Not sure though and no sources.

[N/A Gone]

In all respect, why would some of those be morally acceptable but the others would not? All of them kill the child and safe the mother? Also, who determines if they are morally acceptable?

I am not trying to argue, honestly curious.