Replies

I’d say B was closest to my position, although I also make exception for conditions that make the baby non-viable outside the womb such as Anencephaly.

I have a friend who just had an abortion three days ago. She had an ectopic pregnancy and it would have killed her. I mean really. She found out she was pregnant in the E.R. while they were trying to find out why she was bleeding internally.

I have another friend that believes that no abortion should be legal ever (she is an avid anti-abortion protester. Organizes street protests and everything). So friend B's position would have killed friend A.

I was curious as to how others feel about the matter.

Then why didn't you just tell us that up front? Now it seems a convenient response to being suspected of trolling. Most n00bs seeking knowledge post vanities that say "here's my situation, what do y'all think?"

For your reference:

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. ~Jim Robinson

I know you are not fond of Catholics, from your other posts. But it is legitimate to remove the fetus when it is an ectopic pregnancy, because leaving it will 100% kill the mother, and there is 0% chance that the child will survive.

The Catholic position is that this is not abortion. The intention is to save the life of the mother, and an unfortunate consequence is that it will kill the child, who would soon have died anyway.

Similarly, it is legitimate to give treatment to a pregnant woman with cancer, since the primary intention is to cure the cancer and the secondary result is to kill the baby. BUT, in this case the baby could survive, at the cost of its mother’s life. In this case, therefore, the decision is up to the mother whether to wait to begin treatment until the baby is born or removed by caesarian section first.

A number of Catholic women have decided to save their babies at the cost of their lives. Their decision. And at least one of them has been named a saint as a result.

The problem with choosing “B” is that the abortion lovers who run things these days will use any excuse as killing the baby for the “life or health” of the mother. Like, it would make her sad or depressed if she remained pregnant. The Planned Parenthood abortionist says so. Therefore, “A” is the only decent choice.

I have a friend who just had an abortion three days ago. She had an ectopic pregnancy and it would have killed her. I mean really. She found out she was pregnant in the E.R. while they were trying to find out why she was bleeding internally.
I have another friend that believes that no abortion should be legal ever (she is an avid anti-abortion protester. Organizes street protests and everything). So friend B's position would have killed friend A.

I see that you're capable of responding on your own thread. I'm surprised, actually.

Now ... Why don't you actually ask "Friend B" what his/her/its understanding of an "ectopic pregnancy" is. Seriously. EVERY, and I mean all, without exception, pro-life advocates and activists that I know (and I myself recognize NO excuse for willful, elective abortion) know that an "ectopic pregnancy" is an abnormal and deadly condition. We ALL know that untreated, it is unsurvivable by both mother and child. We ALL know that with current medical technology, the mother's life cannot be saved without sacrificing the baby's.

NOBODY muddies the waters by dragging ectopic pregnancy into the debate, or calling the treatment of it an abortion.

Nobody except pro-death activists.

Izzat you, Sparky? Are you a pro-death advocate?

You have a definition problem there, because removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion and never has been regarded as such, whether defined by moral law, church law, medical ethics or criminal statute.

A little research on that would show that legitimate therapeutic procedures not directed against the baby, are not abortion in any sense, even if the situation is desperate and death of the baby is foreseeable.

It's always a matter of aggressively attacking the disease condition, not the baby. In ethics, this is called "Double Effect". Click that, it's THE starting place for ethical clarity on this issue.

Lest this seem too complicated, let me give examples of procedures of this kind:

treatment of ectopic pregnancy: the surgery is directed at the removal of a woman's diseased organ (fallopian tube). The baby's death is inevitable in any case, but not intended.
Hysterectomy in a case of uterine cancer in a pregnant woman. Again, the surgery focuses on the removal of the uterus, not the murder of the baby. If it were possible to remove the uterus AND surgically remove the baby as in premature delivery, this would be morally required.
Drug/radiation/chemotherapy for a cancerous pregnant woman. This is always legitimate to save her life, whether or not it (indirectly) risks the baby.
Premature delivery of baby when mother has a potentially terminal condition like acute pulmonary hypertension with right heart failure during pregnancy. This is legitimate if there is a good-faith attempt to save the baby. Even if the baby is too preterm to survive, the baby must be handled respectfully and treated as what she is --- a dying baby --- and not just dismembered as would be done in abortion.

I have done considerable reading and questioning about this over a period of 30+ years, and I have never heard of a case where an actual attack on the child, i.e. an abortion, was necessary to save a mother's life.

An experienced OB/Gyn (mine) once told me that "abortion to save the mother's life" is never necessary and, when done, would indicate that the doctor was either unwilling or unable to practice modern obstetrics.

Interestingly, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (Ireland) is also one of the few countries where the laws against criminal abortion are enforced.

So before you go polling people about this, it would be best to start by defining your terms correctly.

I would be as interested in the results as you are.

Your friend did NOT have an "abortion". She had to have surgery to remove the developing baby from her fallopian tube which, if allowed to continue, would have killed both her and the baby. Sadly, because of the short gestation and the inability to protect the baby's life in ANY other way, the child died. She literally had no choice. That is why people CAN be staunchly against all elective abortions - because they are the willful killing of the unborn, developing baby and are not done to save the life of the mother. Life of the mother exceptions are just that - exceptions AND rare. Please let your friend know how sorry you are for her loss and console her that she did not kill her baby. Hopefully, she will be able to have children in the future. She should not be made to feel guilty over this and your other friend should be supportive and help your friend to recover and heal from her loss.