alek0

These were the comments from another board from a catholic concerning ectopic pregnancies:


I definitely don't understand these people. Tubal pregnancy cannot continue beyond 6-8 weeks. Embryo/fetus will die anyway, and if it is not removed mother will likely die as well. So what difference does it make whether you remove a tube or part of it, or you use a drug? The latter is certainly less traumatic for the mother, and outcome for the fetus is the same.

Bible Humper

Catholicism.......Logic.......Apples.......Oranges

godlessheathenpagan

I don't understand about treating the embryo as a "preemie". As you say, a ectopic pregnancy cannot last more than 6-8 weeks without the embryo and the woman dying.

I don't see how medical science can replace the embryo back in the womb from the tube.

This is what they would have to do.

I had a very premature baby (25 weeks). His survival chances were 50%. Any fetus born before 25 weeks survival chances go down even more, until if you have delivery of a fetus at 23 weeks, it is not viable and WILL NOT survive.

How would any person expect a 6-8 week embryo to survive outside the womb?

BTW, when I had my child at 25 weeks, his eyes and ears were not developed, he had absolutely no fat on him and it was evident that he was technically still a fetus, not a baby. If anyone expects a preemie to look like a normal baby, they really need to visit an NICU and see reality and see what micro-preemies go through. He had heal sticks as often as every four hours. He was intubated for most of his stay in the NICU. He had numerous IV's and some drugs that even Abby Aaron (on Misc. Religious thread) would love to have.

After having spent 9 months in the NICU with my son, I can tell you from personal experience and from the doctors and nurses experience a 23 week old preemie does not have a fighting chance.

GHP

2tadpoles

Please go back to those Catholic message boards and explain to them that there is no such thing as an "embryo transplant!" When they remove the fallopian tube and embryo (or fetus), they do not do so in order to save the fetus. They do it to prevent the tube from rupturing and killing the mother. Either way, the fetus will die. They can't take it out of the tube and put it in the uterus, nor can they keep it alive for another 7-8 months until it matures. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

alek0

I'm trying

But one of them keeps repeating the same thing: chemical treatment intentionally kills it, and tube removal does not intentionally kill it.

I don't get it: in both cases whatever you do, you do to save the life of the mother. Outcome for the fetus/embryo is the same in a tubal pregnancy. A woman is lucky if it is detected early enough so that she has a choice between medical and surgical treatment. Why would one be OK and not the other? <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Bree

I think I understand their logic - granted, it's not what we normal people would consider "logic" but let me give it a whirl:

I think these poor, misguided people mean that if you remove the fetus (even at 6-8 weeks) you are removing it whole and intact. If God really wanted that baby to live, he would find some means to do so (even if it's not scientifically possible - hey, God can do great things, right?!). So, by chemically flushing out the fetus, you are in essence playing "God" and deciding the outcome for that "child's" life. By removing the fetus intact, you are giving God a chance to work His magick and save a life.

Now, of course this is all bullshit. I've had an ectopic pregnancy myself and we ALL know it doesn't work this way. But it's a nice thought for Fundies, I'm sure.

alek0

Here is one of the links they posted in response:
<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT" target="_blank">http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT</a>

This part makes me sick:
I keep trying to think about it in a manner that those who accept this bullshit are doing humanity a favour by removing themselves from gene pool, but it still upsets me. It upsets me that few additional days for brainless lump of tissue which will never develop into human being are more valuable than a woman's life.

Another pearl of wisdom from one of the links, which is trying to make distinction between chemical and surgical treatments of ectopic:
"Moreover, the procedures are undertaken “not for the benefit of the unborn child, who is killed as a result of their use, but for the benefit of another, the mother” (E&M 23:3, p. 2)."

Tube removal is also for the benefit of the mother, certainly not for the benefit of the fetus. Bah! I'll never understand them I guess.

IvanK

The logic behind this (and there is some) goes back to Aquinas. He first formulated exceptions to the "natural law" ethical philosophy. This one requires that the end of fetal viability:

1. not be the intention of the act in question; and

2. be a side effect rather than a direct effect of the act.

I haven't heard it applied to the issue of ectopic pregnancy before, but I can see where one could argue that removing the tube that happens to contain a fetus does not include the intention of ending viability, nor is the end of viability a direct effect of removing the tube (though there are complicated rules I can't bring to memory just now that spell out the difference).

I've usually heard it applied to explain the difference between, say, giving a pregnant woman an antibiotic to cure a possibly fatal infection that might also mean the end of her fetus's viability, and taking steps to end a pregnancy if the fetus can't be normally delivered, say if it is hypercephalic. The former is allowed under the exceptions while the latter is not, since ending fetal viability through abortion is both the intent of the act and a direct effect of it.

Taking such ideas to the extreme, one might argue that one should just sit in a corner sucking one's thumb for the remainder of one's life rather than take any action that might be a sin. As practical advice for determining which choice to make in difficult situations, advising someone simply not to choose ("leave it in God's hands") admittedly isn't very good.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>