This question came to mind while I was reading autz’s thread on abortion, but I didn’t want to hijack it. In that thread, I understood that some people believe life begins when the egg is fertilized by the sperm. Now, I realize the whole question, “When does life begin?” is a rather large can of worms even for this board, and I’m in no mood to go fishing, but it did get me wondering what people who believe that think about ectopic pregnancies. As I understand things, in an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg implants in a woman’s fallopian tubes. Because it cannot be nourished there, nor are women’s bodies made to support such an event, the egg is removed. I don’t know how common this is, but I do know that a former neighbor of mine had two ectopic pregancies and is now unable to have children because the scar tissue resulting from the procedure blocks the Fallopian tubes.
I realize the short answer to this for most people will be, “It’s a tragedy”, but I was interested in a bit more discussion.
I’m looking forward to reading what you have to write.
CJ
IIRC, this is a topic that comes up a lot in Catholic circles. IIRC, the procedure to save the mother’s life is actually considered licit, if the doctor’s intent is to try to save both lives (which, I’m sure, never happens.)
There’s a principle called the “double effect” under which you can morally tolerate an action that has both a good and a bad outcome under four circumstances:
The act itself, independent of its consequences, must be good or at least morally neutral.
The good effect must not result from the evil effect. The evil effect must be an incidental by-product of the good effect.
The evil effect must not be intended but only permitted.
There must be a proportionately grave reason to permit the evil effect.
The quickie analysis is that an ectopic pregnancy surgery is morally licit, since you’re going in there to save the mother’s life. The trick is that the unborn child’s death is an unintended (and undesired) byproduct of the surgery: in other words, you’re not supposed to go in there with your fingers crossed, being secretly glad that the kid will die. This would be different from abortion, in which the intent is to kill the child.
I realize that this is going to touch off a horde of controversy: “But Res, a woman who aborts her child to save her life doesn’t intend to kill the kid!” My short answer is that there’s two differences: 1) the intent to kill the child is implicit in the act of abortion (it’s claimed that the child’s death isn’t desired, but the very act of doing it says that it is), and 2) in the ectopic surgery, the child’s death is a side-effect, while in abortion, the child’s death is done directly.
I’m still gonna get questions, I’m sure. I can try to dig up a better explanation. In the meantime: yes, ectopic pregnancies suck. My condolences to anybody who’s been through one.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re interested in finding out. Generally (AFAIK), ectopic pregnancies threaten both the life of the embryo and of the mother. Since a pro life philosophy makes an exception for the rare event of maternal life risk, removal of embryo (and other fallopian tube tissue I believe) would not generally be a moral problem for pro life folks.
If there were a legitimately safe way to move the embryo so that it implanted in the uterus, I suppose we might be having a different discussion. AFAIK, that’s not a real possibility (although my knowledge here is sketchy and I welcome correction).
Obviously from a pro life view (and other views I suspect) it’s a tragedy, much like a miscarriage is a tragedy. Discussions of why ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages occur is a topic for another thread…a thread I suspect would involve more discussions about the nature of “God” than science.
If the mother dies, so does the baby. If her death is certain if the ectopic pregnancy continues, what’s the problem? We should at least save one of them, if the alternative is to lose both of them.
I’ve never had to face an ectopic pregnancy but my best friend did. I have, however, had three miscarriages and I would not hesitate to consider her experiance and mine basicly equal.
From what I’ve read, I believe the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy is often terribly deformed as a result of the constricted area it’s growing in. For that reason, I wonder if such a fetus will actually be saveable even if the technology to transplant it exists?
Another reason I doubt that a lot of fetus’s will be saved is that ectopic pregnancies often occur because a “tied” tube has become partially undone, allowing sperm to penetrate but not leaving an opening big enough for a fertilized egg to decend. In that case the conception was, of course, accidental and the end of the pregnancy would probably be viewed as providential.
I think it will be more likely that women who suffer an ectopic pregnancy because of a congenital deformaty or scarring in the tube will be the one’s to want to attempt a transplant. I hope it does become available. I suppose though, that transplant would be viewed as an elective procedure not a lifesaving one and would be considerably more expensive. Hey, who says life is cheap, right?!
