ectopic pregnancy vs. regular

[dairygirl4u2c]

So a woman's about to have an ectopic pregnancy because the baby is detrimental to her health. She decides that the baby's going to die either way, so she decides just to have a straight up abortion to get around all the surgery and such. Would she be guilty of the sin of abortion? How does her decision differ in terms of justifiability from someone who goes through the ectopic procedure?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='965394' date='Apr 29 2006, 07:06 PM']
So a woman's about to have an ectopic pregnancy because the baby is detrimental to her health. She decides that the baby's going to die either way, so she decides just to have a straight up abortion to get around all the surgery and such. Would she be guilty of the sin of abortion? How does her decision differ in terms of justifiability from someone who goes through the ectopic procedure?
[/quote]

Directly killing an unborn child is murder. Removing the fallopian tube is not. One is the intent to directly murder an unborn human being, the other is corrective surgery to save the life of the mother, in which the death of the child is undesirable but does incur. It is the princple of double effect.

[dairygirl4u2c]

They're both to save the mother for the same reason. No one's fooling anyone when you remove the tube.. the baby dies.

Are you saying that this is just a matter of principle?

[Brother Adam]

It is a matter of moral value. And yes it does matter. I know one couple who went through an ectopic pregnancy and she had to have her fallopian tube removed. If you were to ask them, they would tell you just how big of a difference their is, morally and psychologically.

A good book to start with on the subject is William May's Introduction to Moral Theology.

Edited April 30, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Deeds]

I have a question. Ectopic pregnancies can also be treated using mifepristone, which is a drug used in early chemical abortions. It basically flushes out the embryo from the tube. Would this be permissible under the principle of double effect, if the intention was to clear the blockage and not to harm the baby?

[jasJis]

Deeds,
I'd say no because it is specific to the fetus only. In the other case, it is removing a dysfunctional fallopian tube in order to save the female's life. The fetus dying is secondary. In the other case, it's killing the fetus to save the fallopian tube and the woman.

What many people fail to do is look at all the circumstances. It's so much easier to have one set black/white rule, or to just consider a few factors. In making decisions like this you need to engage your mind, heart, soul, and conscience. A lot of reading, discussion, prayer, and counseling is needed for each and every case.

Some of the guidelines would be to discern is it possible for both lives to be saved.
Can one life voluntarily sacrifice itself to save the other?
Is the mother responsible to other lives (kids) as well.
If the mother sacrificed herself, are their other people who can take care of the other Children?
What about the husband?
No one life is more valuable or important than the other only because of it's status. An adult may have more responsibilities and immediate effects, but the child has potential to do the same or more in the future.

[desertwoman]

What will happen if you just let the pregnancy be? Will the baby eventually die anyway?

[Sarah_JC]

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the fallopian tube just can't stretch enough to hold a baby. The tube will burst, killing the mother and child. The only choice is to save the mothers life or let them both die.

[Deeds]

[quote]I'd say no because it is specific to the fetus only. In the other case, it is removing a dysfunctional fallopian tube in order to save the female's life. The fetus dying is secondary. In the other case, it's killing the fetus to save the fallopian tube and the woman.[/quote]
I'm not really convinced by that argument. The fallopian tube isn't dysfunctional: it's the presense of the embryo there that's dysfunctional. I don't see the difference between removing the fallopian tube and thereby the embryo dies or unblocking the fallopian tube and thereby the embryo dies. I see both instances of the baby dying as secondary.

[quote]What will happen if you just let the pregnancy be? Will the baby eventually die anyway?[/quote]
If it implants in the fallopian tube then sometimes the embryo is absorbed by the mother's body but also the tube can rupture as the embryo grows, possibly causing maternal death. There is no way to save the baby. This is the normal scenario in an ectopic pregnancy. There are also very very rare occurrences of a foetus growing in the mother's abdomen and being delivered by caesarian section (only a dozen cases in the world).

Edited April 30, 2006 by Deeds

[Cam42]

From Fr. Frank Pavone:
[quote]There is more than one medical way of handling an ectopic pregnancy. The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. "Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong.

However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube. Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother's life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called the Principle of the Double Effect.[/quote]

Speaking about abortion and what constitutes abortion:
[quote name='CCC #2271']Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2272']Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2273']The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2274']Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."[/quote]

[quote name='CCC #2275']"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity" which are unique and unrepeatable.[/quote]

It is clear through Catechetical teaching and that of Fr. Pavone; the direct abortion of a child is never permissable. Speaking from an ectopic pregnancy standpoint, IF and only IF the intention is not to kill the child, then the removal of the specific area affected is permissable. However, if the intention is to save the mother's life AND abort the child, then it is not ever acceptable. Bottom line: The direct abortion of a child is never permissable and the unborn child must be afforded the same rights as one who is outside the womb.

This teaching is clear from the first century AD. The Didache speaks of this and the teaching has been consistently taught throughout history up to and beyond Humane Vitae.

[jasJis]

Dang. I was close to being accurate and right according to mainline Catholics. But for the grace of God, I'd be a Scientologist.

[dspen2005]

as far as i am to understand from my time majoring in Biology, there isn't a way of preserving the life of the child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. B/c of this the CHurch allows for a procedure wherein the child will be permitted to die (of course, this is an effect of the procedure, and not the direct intention)

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dspen2005' post='966332' date='Apr 30 2006, 11:28 PM']
as far as i am to understand from my time majoring in Biology, there isn't a way of preserving the life of the child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. B/c of this the CHurch allows for a procedure wherein the child will be permitted to die (of course, this is an effect of the procedure, and not the direct intention)
[/quote]

There is actually now a new and very rare procedure that allows for the child to be transplanted into the uterus, but it is not covered by medical insurance and has a very low success rate. However, this probably would be the best way to go if the parents are able to afford it. It at least gives the child a fighting chance.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Brother Adam

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]There is actually now a new and very rare procedure that allows for the child to be transplanted into the uterus, but it is not covered by medical insurance and has a very low success rate. However, this probably would be the best way to go if the parents are able to afford it. It at least gives the child a fighting chance.[/quote]

So's this the answer you'd give to Deed's last post? That post is pretty much what my argument came down to only much more scientific and realistic and less hypothetical. And what if you can't afford it? Then how do you answer Deed?

So I take your answer as a matter of principle. But it seems like more explanation is needed other than just because. Can you give more?

[prose]

[quote]I have a question. Ectopic pregnancies can also be treated using mifepristone, which is a drug used in early chemical abortions. It basically flushes out the embryo from the tube. Would this be permissible under the principle of double effect, if the intention was to clear the blockage and not to harm the baby?[/quote]

The problem with this theory is that a baby is not a "blockage". It isn't like it is just a cyst or something. It is a human being in every sense of the word. The pills don't "flush" the fallopian tubes. They kill a child and then its body is ejected.