Ignore the damned "purists" here.I had two very close friends who had to undergo surgery for ectopic pregnancies and neither have any children.Both were and still are anti-abortion,but of these women had to have an abortion or she would have died! She had already had one ectopic pregnancy and was determined to have a child of her own body no matter what. The no matter what became a life and death situation when her fallopian tube exploded and she hemorrhaged so much blood and fetus/baby material that she was at death's door when she arrived at the hospital.
That's not an abortion; that's a surgery to save the life of the mother, which has as an unfortunate side-effect, the unintended death of the unborn child.
When the fallopian tube has burst, there is no abortion. There is removal of the ruptured and hemorrhaging tube. If there is no rupture yet, the most conservative - and most likely to preserve future fertility if the other tube is intact - is to remove the affected tube. (some doctors use methotrexate to kill the embryo in the tube or try to open the affected area and surgically remove the embryo. I believe that this is justifiable in that the embryo is the equivalent of a loaded gun pointed at the mom. But the resultant scarring increases the risk of a future tubal pregnancy, so it's better for the mom in most cases to have the more conservative surgery) The baby is usually removed along with the damaged tube, because there is no way to save him or her. The child dies because the tube dies.
This is not the intent of the procedure, however. For instance, if the docs were to discover that there is not actually a tubal pregnancy, but a burst appendix or ovarian cyst or aneurysm, they would address the actual problem and leave the baby in the uterus alone.
Thanks, but there's good to compensate the bad. I feel we're lucky to have our older daughter. The chances were against it. She's a little miracle and the world needs all those it can get.