Christians and those against abortion: ectopic pregnancy question

[K&Rs Mom]

I don't even see a comparison and would think it quite hurtful for those who have went through an ectopic pregnancy.

 

The comparison was in my mind as I was going through this in the hospital last summer - I hadn't even known I was pregnant, and now they're saying I have to let them take out this baby I just found out about. When the dr told me the baby was already dead, it made the decision to remove the tube a whole lot easier. Since my tube ruptured while I was on the table, it's not like there was a lot of time to debate the morality of it, plus I couldn't think clearly because of the pain. If I had found out earlier, I definitely would have struggled more with the decision because I'm 100% pro-life.

[OH_Homeschooler]

Assuming ectopic in a tube (ectopic actually means anywhere outside the uterus and very, very rarely some of those survive), the baby will die once it grows large enough to rupture the tube. When the tube ruptures, the mother could bleed to death. It's not like a typical abortion.

 

Yes, I thought that babies in ectopic pregnancies were not viable, so both baby and mother would be very likely to die. I don't see any benefits to letting that kind of pregnancy continue.

 

It's not like finding out the baby will have special needs, it's like finding out the baby will not make it to birth and may kill the mom in the process.

[Soror]

The comparison was in my mind as I was going through this in the hospital last summer - I hadn't even known I was pregnant, and now they're saying I have to let them take out this baby I just found out about. When the dr told me the baby was already dead, it made the decision to remove the tube a whole lot easier. Since my tube ruptured while I was on the table, it's not like there was a lot of time to debate the morality of it, plus I couldn't think clearly because of the pain. If I had found out earlier, I definitely would have struggled more with the decision because I'm 100% pro-life.

 

You are talking to people here who are also 100% pro-life. I don't use any form of chemical birth control because of that(and other reasons) but the life isn't viable in an ectopic pregnancy unfortunately, the only choice is 2 deaths instead of 1.

[Mynyel]

Well considering I have three kids here already that need me, the risk of bleeding to death should the tube rupture just wouldn't be worth it to me. For the record, I am anti-abortion Christian, and would not consider this to be in the same category as a regular abortion.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm pro-life. Won't even get an iUD because of how it works. (expelling a fertilized egg) But I would not hesitate to have surgery if I had an eCtopic. Yes it's a baby. Of course I would be devistated. But it's different than an abortion. This baby will not live. It can't. And I very well could die without the surgery. I've read an article where a baby lived to term in the tube. But the mother never had pain and didn't know it was in the tube. If you're having pain, I would assume you're not going to have a miracle ft pregnancy.

 

:iagree:

 

I won't get an IUD either (although I had one in the bast. I didn't know how it worked. I was young and didn't ask questions).

 

I also wouldn't hesitate prevent myself from perishing. The baby would not survive if left there and the potential death my myself would be bad for the family I have already.

 

This is definitely not the same thing as an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy.

[K&Rs Mom]

You are talking to people here who are also 100% pro-life. I don't use any form of chemical birth control because of that(and other reasons) but the life isn't viable in an ectopic pregnancy unfortunately, the only choice is 2 deaths instead of 1.

 

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you weren't, just that it's a terrible decision to have to make and that "not viable" vs "not alive" makes it a slightly different situation.

[cottonmama]

To me this is similar to a horrible situation a friend of mine was in some years ago -- she was carrying twins and there was a particular condition (I can't remember the details) such that only one of the twins could survive. Now, perhaps the doctor was talking statistically, and if she had taken a risk they both might have survived if they had been very very lucky. But the thing was that it was a judgment call, and the best decision she felt like she could make was to abort one baby so that the other could survive, so that one life would be lost instead of two.

 

IMO respecting the sanctity of life allows people to make the best decision they can to preserve lives. When someone is faced with a choice like this, a choice between the loss of two lives and the loss of one life -- and in order to preserve the one life they have to take the other life -- neither decision is really easy. I can respect people who put their faith in God to provide a miracle, but we know that God does not provide that miracle every time. I would say that choosing to do the thing that statistically results in the most lives saved is still a very pro-life thing to do.

[Henriettakittycat]

I've had an ectopic.

 

Long story short, I was starting to rupture as they were performing the surgery.

 

There was no way to save the baby. I asked. The only question was if I was going to die as well.

 

Comparing an ectopic to a chosen abortion is extremely hurtful and offensive.

 

I still mourn that lost child.

 

 

Same here.

 

My first pregnancy was an ectopic at 8 weeks. I still remember how it felt to hear those words, "You are having an ectopic pregnancy" and to see my husband of one week lean over my belly and say "goodbye" to our baby.

 

Afterwards when I had a checkup I told the dr. I felt we aborted our baby. He told me, "I'm a Christian. I don't do abortions. This was not an abortion."

[gardenmom5]

A friend of a friend recently had an ectopic pregnacy and that has me thinking... I am not sure what I would do if I had an ectopic pregnancy (which can't happen, husband and I are fixed). I am not sure I could terminate the pregnancy. I know they say the mother's life is at risk, but it is a baby, right? I honestly don't know what I would do. I think I would try my best to put it in God's hands and pray for a miracle so I could be aroud for my husband and other children. I would hopefully accept that I might die, but anyways, I don't know... Just thinking and not judging those who have been in the situation.

 

medically, an ectopic pregnancy is not considered viable. it will never go to term, let alone long enough to get a viable baby. it WILL put the mother's life in jeopardy (assuming she get's appropriate medical care quickly) or it WILL kill her if she does not get medical care.

 

I have an aunt who died from an ectopic pregnancy.

 

eta: I agree with those who've stated comparing an *elective* abortion to an ectopic pregnancy reveals their ignorance at best.

do you understand what "ectopic" means? it means it implanted somewhere *other* than in the uterus -usually the fallopian tube. it WILL rupture, and cause hemorraghing. Catholic hospitals will treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy.

Edited April 26, 2012 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

When hcg levels rise then drop, and , you do not have a viable pregnancy. .

 

normal hcg levels rise, peak and level off, and go down.

 

eta: if I understand you correctly, yours were up and down and up.

 

I did the blood draw every other day with 3ds because I started spotting at six weeks (I had put off even doing a pg test because I didn't believe it. I hadn't used bc for YEARS and I was in my 40's.)

Edited April 26, 2012 by gardenmom5

[MelAR05]

normal hcg levels rise, peak and level off, and go down.

 

This is what happened to me.

 

I am more emotional reading this thread than I thought I would be. Never once imagined this could be considered in the same camp as abortion.

[gardenmom5]

This is what happened to me.

 

I am more emotional reading this thread than I thought I would be. Never once imagined this could be considered in the same camp as abortion.

 

 

What I meant was even in a normal pregnancy - the hcg climbs, levels and drops. that is what my ob told me as we were testing my levels every other day to see what the "qualitative" levels were. we were pretty sure it wasn't ectopic, but not sure if I was going to carry.

 

I didn't miscarry, I just spotted off and on for six wees. :glare: I did reach a point where I just called him, said "I'm bleeding, I'll call back if I freak". because I was tired of being sent to the hospital for US every. single. time. (with the internal transducer, they could see things at six weeks pg.) then I started bleeding all over again at 7 1/2 months. :glare: that kid. :tongue_smilie: good thing he's cute.;)

[Seeking Squirrels]

I'm a Christian and anti-abortion. I don't consider a medical condition that risks the mothers life where the baby has no chance of surviving, an abortion. That's just getting medical attention. I had no idea it was even a question to anyone.

[Mrs Mungo]

Lots of women wind up with abortions due to medical complications. Abortion is a medical term. It is not only used to describe ending unwanted pregnancies. It is a term used by doctors, lawmakers and insurance companies to describe a procedure, not the reasons behind it. That is part of the reason the debate is so tricky in the first place.

[Bluegoat]

 

eta: I agree with those who've stated comparing an *elective* abortion to an ectopic pregnancy reveals their ignorance at best.

do you understand what "ectopic" means? it means it implanted somewhere *other* than in the uterus -usually the fallopian tube. it WILL rupture, and cause hemorraghing. Catholic hospitals will treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy.

 

Yes, Catholic hospitals do do, but they don't do it in just any way - there are guidelines. Strictly speaking the fact that the mother's life is in jeperody and the embryo can't survive aren't part of the equation as far as they are concerned.

 

I don't imagine anyone considers such a procedure "the same" psychologically as an elective abortion for some private reason - although many people who have elective abortions feel there is really no choice because of external circumstances. They might not see so much of a difference as the posters here seem to.

 

But from the standpoint of moral theology - what you are actually doing - there are very legitimate and serious questions to be considered about what is appropriate. The idea that it is the right choice, even when one person is ultimately doomed, to sacrifice that one for the another, is not a simple moral question. I can't think of any other situation where it would be considered a simple and obvious question.

 

In general a person in the immediacy of facing an ectopic doesn't have a lot of time to think about those things really clearly and is probably too full of emotion anyway. On the other hand, if a person has thought about them before it could be a big help in making a decision about what route to take. So I don't think it is useless to have such discussions at all - it is the time they are most likely to be useful to people.

[TranquilMind]

I'm Catholic and would follow the Church's teaching:

 

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0140.htm

Not Catholic, but it stands to reason that this isn't a viable pregnancy because it isn't going to result in a baby, barring a miracle sometime before the woman has to go to the emergency room.

 

The logic of that post is convoluted. Nevertheless, the baby isn't going to grow in there, and Mom's life is at stake, so the least invasive means of removing the implanted egg would have to be the way to go, I would think.

[TranquilMind]

Still, my own opinion would be that doing the procedure that has the best chance of allowing the mother to create life in the future does just as much to respect the sanctity of life, given that the end result of the ectopic pregnancy is the same either way.

 

Of course, as a pro-choice Pagan, I'm not exactly the target audience for this question. :tongue_smilie:

 

Hey, as a pro-life Christian, I totally agree with what you say above! Whatever allows the Mom to create life in the future is the way to go! :confused:

[CatMomof3]

My first pregnancy was an ectopic at 8 weeks. I still remember how it felt to hear those words, "You are having an ectopic pregnancy" and to see my husband of one week lean over my belly and say "goodbye" to our baby.

 

Afterwards when I had a checkup I told the dr. I felt we aborted our baby. He told me, "I'm a Christian. I don't do abortions. This was not an abortion."

 

:grouphug:

[gardenmom5]

Yes, Catholic hospitals do do, but they don't do it in just any way - there are guidelines.

the point is - even catholic hospitals see the medical necessity of doing *something*. they may have specific criteria about how they do it - but the end is the same, the woman is no longer pregnant.

 

I don't imagine anyone considers such a procedure "the same" psychologically as an elective abortion for some private reason -

obviously some do - if you've read this thread that would be clear.

[momtoamiracle]

I haven't read all the thread but I can tell you an ectopic pregnancy is incredibly serious. Many years ago I knew a person that died from a rupture.

 

 

Then nine years ago I myself came very close to death when my tube ruptured. I didn't know the baby was in the tube, we thought it was where it should be at 8wks - I had a psuedosac, very common in ectopics. I almost bled to death before I went into emergency surgery. That was my first ectopic.

 

My second was 15 mnths later. We have no idea where the baby was, but I was bleeding internally and there was no baby on the u/s. Not in the uterus, not in the tube, so it was somewhere in my abdomen. I had immediate surgery to try to find it. It was never found but all the blood was taken out of my abdomen. I averted death a second time.

 

 

There is no way to know if the babies were even alive. With my 4th miscarriage the baby was dead but the sac kept growing, so my hcg levels were still rising. Many times before detection the baby has died, or is about to die. Other times they have found a hearbeat. That would really get me if that had happened to me. I don't even want to think about it. In my situations I have no regrets as to the surgeries I had to resolve the ectopics. I do not support abortion and in no way shape or form do I believe I had what would equal an abortion.

[ElizaG]

Yes, Catholic hospitals do do, but they don't do it in just any way - there are guidelines. Strictly speaking the fact that the mother's life is in jeperody and the embryo can't survive aren't part of the equation as far as they are concerned.

The second sentence above isn't correct. In order for the principle of double effect to apply, there needs to be a proportionate reason. So the risk to the mother is very much weighed into the decision. Although even that factor couldn't be used to justify the use of methods involving direct killing.

 

This is the opinion of a large majority of Catholic bioethicists, and the one that seems most consistent with established Church teaching (e.g., on past questions regarding killing the baby to save the mother during childbirth, which was done before c-sections became readily available). Here's a good recent article on this subject:

 

Ectopic Pregnancy and Catholic Morality (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2011)

Edited April 26, 2012 by Eleanor

[Mrs Mungo]

I do not support abortion and in no way shape or form do I believe I had what would equal an abortion.

 

I have a friend who was pregnant with three babies. One of them died early in the pregnancy. In order to stay pregnant with the other two babies, the dead baby had to be removed. In medical terminology, it was an abortion. Federal money cannot be used to fund an abortion. Because they were a military family they had to pay for the procedure out of pocket.

 

Do I think that is the same as getting rid of a completely normal, healthy pregnancy? No, but blanket laws do not make those types of differentiations nor is there time in emergencies to prove such a thing to a governing body. Therefore, it is legally the same. Many of the procedures that fall within the legal definition of abortion are non-viable pregnancies that require necessary medical procedures to protect the mom and/or other babeis. Ectopic pregnancy is not the only one.

[NanceXToo]

Not Catholic, but it stands to reason that this isn't a viable pregnancy because it isn't going to result in a baby, barring a miracle sometime before the woman has to go to the emergency room.

 

The logic of that post is convoluted. Nevertheless, the baby isn't going to grow in there, and Mom's life is at stake, so the least invasive means of removing the implanted egg would have to be the way to go, I would think.

 

:iagree: I had a hard time following the logic on that site.

 

I am not Christian and I lean pro-choice so I'm not the type of person you're asking this question of. Nevertheless, I had an ectopic last summer for which I allowed my doctor to administer methotrexate at their recommendation. It was a pregnancy that was very much wanted (I'd been trying for months and was in my late 30's and really wanted another baby before it got to be too late for me to have one). So I do not even remotely consider that I "had an abortion." I had a medically necessary procedure in order to not put my own life or fertility in more danger than necessary, and in order not to leave my three kids without a mom. I spent the last near year recovering and then losing a lot of weight in order to get myself healthy enough to try again, which I'm finally doing as of this month (just before my 39th birthday). I hope I am able to conceive again, and I hope that I do not have a m/c or another ectopic, a scary thought, because I still very much want that one more baby. So if someone were to tell me I did something immoral or "had an abortion" last summer, I have a suggestion as to what they can do with that opinion.

[QueenCat]

I have a friend who was pregnant with three babies. One of them died early in the pregnancy. In order to stay pregnant with the other two babies, the dead baby had to be removed. In medical terminology, it was an abortion. Federal money cannot be used to fund an abortion. Because they were a military family they had to pay for the procedure out of pocket.

 

Do I think that is the same as getting rid of a completely normal, healthy pregnancy? No, but blanket laws do not make those types of differentiations nor is there time in emergencies to prove such a thing to a governing body. Therefore, it is legally the same. Many of the procedures that fall within the legal definition of abortion are non-viable pregnancies that require necessary medical procedures to protect the mom and/or other babeis. Ectopic pregnancy is not the only one.

 

That is INSANE. I had no idea something like this would be classified in such a way that the soldier's family would be burdened with the cost. Absolutely crazy.

[Bluegoat]

obviously some do - if you've read this thread that would be clear.

 

Um, I have read the thread. I haven't seen anyone say that. I have seen people say that in an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo, though doomed, is a person, and so any action taken is very grave. Not quite the same.

[TranquilMind]

I haven't read all the thread but I can tell you an ectopic pregnancy is incredibly serious. Many years ago I knew a person that died from a rupture.

 

 

Then nine years ago I myself came very close to death when my tube ruptured. I didn't know the baby was in the tube, we thought it was where it should be at 8wks - I had a psuedosac, very common in ectopics. I almost bled to death before I went into emergency surgery. That was my first ectopic.

 

My second was 15 mnths later. We have no idea where the baby was, but I was bleeding internally and there was no baby on the u/s. Not in the uterus, not in the tube, so it was somewhere in my abdomen. I had immediate surgery to try to find it. It was never found but all the blood was taken out of my abdomen. I averted death a second time.

 

 

There is no way to know if the babies were even alive. With my 4th miscarriage the baby was dead but the sac kept growing, so my hcg levels were still rising. Many times before detection the baby has died, or is about to die. Other times they have found a hearbeat. That would really get me if that had happened to me. I don't even want to think about it. In my situations I have no regrets as to the surgeries I had to resolve the ectopics. I do not support abortion and in no way shape or form do I believe I had what would equal an abortion.

Wow. I'm so sorry you went through all this, and glad you got your miracle boy!

[Bluegoat]

The second sentence above isn't correct. In order for the principle of double effect to apply, there needs to be a proportionate reason. So the risk to the mother is very much weighed into the decision. Although even that factor couldn't be used to justify the use of methods involving direct killing.

 

This is the opinion of a large majority of Catholic bioethicists, and the one that seems most consistent with established Church teaching (e.g., on past questions regarding killing the baby to save the mother during childbirth, which was done before c-sections became readily available). Here's a good recent article on this subject:

 

Ectopic Pregnancy and Catholic Morality (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Spring 2011)

 

Yes, you are right - I should have been more clear. I was thinking more in terms of the tendency of people to say that because the mother could easily die, or especially the embryo will die, is is not the same as elective abortion. But that isn't really the reasoning - the CC does not support direct action on the embryo despite those facts.

[NASDAQ]

Jewish law says that a pregnancy that will kill or maim the mother has the status of rodef, one who is pursuing and seeking to kill or main someone else. It is acceptable to kill such a person if necessary, even if the rodef is not morally responsible (say, CVS, he is insane).

 

It is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy that is ectopic.

 

Obviously I'm not a rabbi so if you are Jewish you should consult your own rabbi in such a situation (G-d forbid).

[momtoamiracle]

I have a friend who was pregnant with three babies. One of them died early in the pregnancy. In order to stay pregnant with the other two babies, the dead baby had to be removed. In medical terminology, it was an abortion. Federal money cannot be used to fund an abortion. Because they were a military family they had to pay for the procedure out of pocket.

 

Do I think that is the same as getting rid of a completely normal, healthy pregnancy? No, but blanket laws do not make those types of differentiations nor is there time in emergencies to prove such a thing to a governing body. Therefore, it is legally the same. Many of the procedures that fall within the legal definition of abortion are non-viable pregnancies that require necessary medical procedures to protect the mom and/or other babeis. Ectopic pregnancy is not the only one.

 

 

 

I've never heard of removing a dead baby to be an abortion. I had a D&C for my last miscarriage, my body wasn't expelling the dead baby. I can see how the procedure is the same, but I wouldn't think to classify that as an abortion as the baby was dead. It's life was already ended.

 

of course now that I think about it, a miscarriage is termed "spontaneous abortion."

 

 

so maybe the killing of a fetus via "abortion" needs another term to differentiate? Or is there a differentiation, legally? It doesn't seem fair to me that women who lose their babies would have the same legal term as those who choose to end their child's life.

 

 

That's really sad they had to pay for it. Seems there should be a consideration of the situation.

[momtoamiracle]

Wow. I'm so sorry you went through all this, and glad you got your miracle boy!

 

 

 

thank you so much. I had only a 50% chance of a intrauterine pregnancy when I got pg with him. Sadly I lost another baby after I had him, four losses total.

 

I'm very grateful I was able to have my one miracle.

[Mrs Mungo]

That is INSANE. I had no idea something like this would be classified in such a way that the soldier's family would be burdened with the cost. Absolutely crazy.

 

Under federal rules, military insurance will only pay if the life of the mother (not the health of the mother, not her fertility, not other fetuses) is at risk (for the record, the insurance of other federal employees also covers rape and incest). So, they will pay to end an ectopic pregnancy, but not many other medical conditions in which the pregnancy is not viable.

[nova147]

Under federal rules, military insurance will only pay if the life of the mother (not the health of the mother, not her fertility, not other fetuses) is at risk (for the record, the insurance of other federal employees also covers rape and incest). So, they will pay to end an ectopic pregnancy, but not many other medical conditions in which the pregnancy is not viable.

 

What about a D&C after ultrasound confirms fetal death? (Just curious.)

[TGHEALTHYMOM]

I had an ectopic and a miracle... I was suddenly cramping and bleeding and in so much pain I could not get up... went to ER... tested positive for titers going down, ultrasound showed nothing. I had to stay sedated in the Maternity ward overnight and my OB said it was not an emergency so I had to wait until the next day.... he did laproscopic surgery and found blood and some tissue outside of the tube.... he was sorry he had no idea how that could have happened... but my tubes were not damaged.

 

A close relative has had 2 ectopics and had to have emergency surgery 2 times in 2 years, and she lost 1 tube. Then she had another healthy baby to make 3..

 

I hate that my Insurance considered me high risk after 1 and raised my rates along with decreasing my amount of care.

 

That was in 2000. I have had 5 healthy babies since and am due in June with our 8th.

 

Now I look back and see that I was on birth control when that happened.

I used bc off and on and had ill effects from it along with the scare of another ectopic.

 

My moral issue is with endometriosis and being debilitated so much, wanting to have something done to help that and the only options are hysterectomy ( full or partial), some wacko shot that will only hurt me and require birth control while using it for 5 months max, an experimental procedure along with ablation to stop menses and pregnancy, or possibly Progesteron cream, which I doubt would work.

[Mrs Mungo]

What about a D&C after ultrasound confirms fetal death? (Just curious.)

 

They will, but in the experience of those in my circles, military docs heavily encourage a wait and see approach. They usually D&Cs when there are complications of some sort. I've known many women who were told to go home and miscarriage there.

[Aelwydd]

I've never heard of removing a dead baby to be an abortion. I had a D&C for my last miscarriage, my body wasn't expelling the dead baby. I can see how the procedure is the same, but I wouldn't think to classify that as an abortion as the baby was dead. It's life was already ended.

 

of course now that I think about it, a miscarriage is termed "spontaneous abortion."

 

 

so maybe the killing of a fetus via "abortion" needs another term to differentiate? Or is there a differentiation, legally? It doesn't seem fair to me that women who lose their babies would have the same legal term as those who choose to end their child's life.

 

 

That's really sad they had to pay for it. Seems there should be a consideration of the situation.

 

The differentiation depends on various state laws, how each defines viability. There is a great deal of variation in classification of abortion. In therapeutic abortions, which is an umbrella term that includes many things including "life and health of the mother," one may have an abortion that is both elective and therapeutic, in much the same way one may have an elective c-section that is also done for reasons of health.

 

If you do not come from a medical background, or have the benefit of legal/medical training, then the terminology surrounding abortion is even more random. In this very thread, you have many people saying that the removal of an embryo that is voluntary constitutes an "abortion," but the removal of an embryo that is involuntary is not.

 

That's an illogical statement. What makes it an abortion is the premature removal of the embryo before viability--period. That's not my personal definition, that is the medical, scientific definition. There are many, many different causes and reasons for abortions. About half of all pregnancies end in natural, spontaneous abortions--miscarriages.

 

There are induced abortions. An ectopic pregnancy may end in one of three ways: a natural, spontaneous abortion that body initiates and implements; a medical, synthetic induced abortion, either by medication or by direct removal; or, in rare instances, successful implantation and growth that results in a full-term infant.

 

With all of these different types of abortions, this is why I put little to no stock in the language many agencies use in either attempting to promote or discourage abortion. When an agency states that x many abortions have taken place in a given region, or state, or hospital, they aren't differentiating between those women who came into the ER bleeding and miscarrying, those who had lifesaving abortions for reasons such as ectopic, those who have abortions to remove a dead embryo or fetus to preserve the life of twin, and finally, those that are purely elective.

 

This is why I insist on using correct terminology, because as Mrs. Mungo has pointed out, there is much confusion and dissension generated by inexact and highly subjective individual definitions. What one person calls an abortion, another calls miscarriage, and another calls something else entirely.

 

So, when I or others here use the term abortion, it's not meant with the intent to inflict emotional harm on another, but to avoid misunderstandings due to obfuscation resulting from inexact terms.

[gardenmom5]

so maybe the killing of a fetus via "abortion" needs another term to differentiate? Or is there a differentiation, legally? It doesn't seem fair to me that women who lose their babies would have the same legal term as those who choose to end their child's life.

 

 

That's really sad they had to pay for it. Seems there should be a consideration of the situation.

 

it's not that it is a legal term, it is a medical term. medical terms are in fact value neutral - they are a technical description. this is why we homeschoolers consider latin/greek study valuable as we have a better understanding of the meaning behind words. hopefully.

 

spontanious - is just that, something that was unplanned ahead of time. (flash mobs are seldom spontanious though they are designed to appear so.)

abort/abortion is used in MANY scientific areas to signify something that was started and ended abruptly without reaching its planned/natural conclusion.

elective is something that is a choice.

 

reality is - when lay people say 'abortion', the emotionally presumed meaning (on both sides of the issue) is that of elective abortion. reality is - there are multiple kinds, not all pregnancies have viable babies and ectopic pregnancies are only ONE kind that will not produce a viable infant. ectopic are also only ONE kind that will not result in a viable infant that also can kill the mother.

[gardenmom5]

somehow got a duplicate.

Edited April 27, 2012 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

Um, I have read the thread. I haven't seen anyone say that. I have seen people say that in an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo, though doomed, is a person, and so any action taken is very grave. Not quite the same.

 

I have. when someone to take a wait and see/put it in God's hands approach (?:001_huh:?) - that is "morally" equating it with an elective procedure.

[gardenmom5]

Um, I have read the thread. I haven't seen anyone say that. I have seen people say that in an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo, though doomed, is a person, and so any action taken is very grave. Not quite the same.

 

I have. when someone wants to take a wait and see/put it in God's hands approach (?:001_huh:?) becasue they could never bring themselves to "do that" - that is "morally" equating it with an elective procedure.

 

eta: if as you said you've read the thread, you'll note I'm not the only one who felt that was what some were suggesting and were offended by that suggestion.

Edited April 27, 2012 by gardenmom5