End of Roe Vs Wade?

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Alright, perhaps I overstated my case, depending on how you took my above statement. However, this does not mean that abortion is the only solution.


1. The claim that termination of an ectopic pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother

a. The actual danger that an ectopic pregnancy poses to the mother is that of a tubal rupture or some other kind of hemorrhage which could cause the mother to lose a vital amount of blood.

b. Treatment with autotransfusion instead of abortion has a success rate of 99.84%.

In 1914, a doctor in Germany reported success in using autotransfusion to treat ruptured ectopic pregnancies.[1] Autotransfusion involves siphoning the blood which has spilled into the abdominal cavity, running it through a filter and then pumping it back into the mother’s body. In 2002, a worldwide study of 632 ruptured ectopic pregnancies treated with autotransfusion reported only a single instance of death.[2] That’s a success rate of 99.84%.

c. Based on calculations of ectopic pregnancies in Israel, the lowest possible survival rate for women who do not terminate their ectopic pregnancies prior to rupture or delivery is 88%.

The entire southern region of Israel only saw 13 pregnancy related deaths over a 23 year period extending from 1969 to 1991. [3] This comes to an average of .57 deaths per year. In 1992, the Soroka University Hospital in Be’er Sheva reported on 148 ruptured ectopic pregnancies.[4] The report does not provide a range of dates in which these ruptures occurred, but we know that Soroka University Hospital was established in 1960, so we can safely conclude that the 148 ruptured ectopic pregnancies reported by that hospital occurred within a 31 year time period at an average of 4.8 per year. If we assume that every single pregnancy related death in southern Israel was one of these 148 women with ruptured ectopic pregnancies, then we can calculate that a maximum of 12% of ruptured tubal pregnancies result in the death of the mother. Of course, it is highly unlikely that every single pregnancy related death over a period of 23 years was the result of an ectopic pregnancy, and it is equally unlikely that every single one of those deaths occurred at Soroka University Hospital, so that 12% figure must be unrealistically high. Nevertheless, we can safely conclude that women in the southern region of Israel have a greater than 88% chance of surviving a ruptured ectopic pregnancy.

d. The actual survival rate is more likely to be 99.4%.

A more accurate percentage could be obtained by considering that deaths associated with ectopic pregnancies only make up about 6% of the yearly maternal deaths in America.[5] If this figure were to be applied to the maternal mortality rate of southern Israel, we would derive that there were .03 ectopic related deaths per year for that region. When that figure is divided by an average of 4.8 tubal ruptures per year, we arrive at the conclusion that a woman in southern Israel has a 99.4% chance of surviving an ectopic pregnancy which is not aborted prior to rupture.

e. A similar calculation for America produces a lowest possible minimum of 97.7% survival.

In addition, we could calculate the maternal risk from the total number of heterotopic pregnancies (twins with one child in the womb and the other being ectopic) in America. According to Dr. Tenore of the Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, this type of pregnancy occurs in 1 out of every 2,600 pregnancies, and 50% of them (1 out of every 5,200 pregnancies) "are identified only after tubal rupture."[6] According to the American Pregnancy Association, there are approximately 6 million pregnancies per year in the US.[7] Therefore, there are an average of 1,154 heterotopic pregnancies every year in America which are not even discovered much less treated prior to tubal rupture. The CDC reported that there are an average of 26.3 maternal deaths per year that are ectopic related.[8] If we assumed that all of these ectopic related deaths were the result of an undiagnosed heterotopic pregnancy (a condition which only makes up 1% of the total number of ectopic pregnancies), then we would still arrive at a maternal survival rate of 97.7%.

2. The claim that an unborn child cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy

a. Between 1809 and 1935, there were 316 reported live births from ectopic pregnancies.

Two OBGYNs in New York, Dr.’s Hellman and Simon, published details on 316 ectopic pregnancies which resulted in live births between 1809 and 1935.[9] Only half of these children survived their first week of life, but these births occurred before the development of the first neonatal intensive care unit, and most of them before the discovery of penicillin in 1928. With modern technology, it is likely that many more would have survived.

b. With modern technology, there have been even more of these births in recent years in spite of the insistence that abortion is the only viable treatment.

In September of 1999, Ronan Ingram was successfully delivered via c-section. Ronan had implanted in one of his mother’s fallopian tubes which subsequently ruptured as he grew into the abdominal cavity.[10] In May of 2008, Durga Thangarajah was born after spending a full nine months in her mother’s ovary.[11] Sage Dalton was born in July of 1999 after developing in the amniotic membrane outside her mother’s womb.[12] Billy Jones was born in 2008 after developing in his mother’s abdominal cavity.[13] Many additional reports could be given.[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

3. The claim that termination is the only treatment for ectopic pregnancies that is recognized by the medical profession

- Many OBGYNs have recommended allowing ectopic pregnancies to resolve on their own.

Dr.’s Sapuri and Klufio, for example, have recommended that women discovered to have an ectopic pregnancy prior to 28 weeks of gestation should be admitted to a hospital and closely monitored. They stress that blood transfusion facilities should be readily available in case of hemorrhage, and they suggest that once the child has reached 28 weeks of gestation, he should be delivered surgically.[19]


Links to the references denoted by numbers in brackets can be found here at the bottom of the page:


The first part of your list concerns maternal mortality rate, not fetal mortality rate (using the scientific term for a scientific discussion).

The latter part of your list, here:

In September of 1999, Ronan Ingram was successfully delivered via c-section. Ronan had implanted in one of his mother’s fallopian tubes which subsequently ruptured as he grew into the abdominal cavity.[10] In May of 2008, Durga Thangarajah was born after spending a full nine months in her mother’s ovary.[11] Sage Dalton was born in July of 1999 after developing in the amniotic membrane outside her mother’s womb.[12] Billy Jones was born in 2008 after developing in his mother’s abdominal cavity.[13] Many additional reports could be given.[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

doesn't list a single instance where the fetus developed in the fallopian tube, where 98% of ectopic pregnancies develop.

So I don't think that changes anything, and will refer back to the question in my previous post.

So that's the first three, and it's enough. 98% of ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tube, which will burst. The embryo cannot be relocated to the uterus. In my opinion it's disingenuous to present abdominal pregnancies as comparable to tubal pregnancies, with perhaps a pregnant mother swayed enough to hesitate, to wait, until it was too late.

Would you grant an exception rule to an abortion law that allows abortion for an ectopic pregnancy?
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I may or may not get to the other stuff from this post, but I wanted to address this:

Would you grant an exception rule to an abortion law that allows abortion for an ectopic pregnancy

No. Here's why:

The goal is not to kill the child, but to save mom and if possible the baby. Abortion is always wrong, without exception, and should be abolished.

If delivering the baby in an ectopic pregnancy (tubal or otherwise) will save the mother, then you do that. But you don't stop in the middle of that delivery to kill the baby. That's intentionally taking the life of an innocent child, aka murder.

In other words, if the mother's life is in danger, why do you need to intentionally kill the baby when delivering the baby will save the mother? Why not just deliver the baby to save the mother, and let mom love the baby if/until he dies?

Why does the last sounds the baby hears, sensations the baby feels, be the snip of a sissors or the roar of a suction aspiration vacuum? Why can't it be the feeling of his mom holding him in her hands, the sound of her voice as she sings to him?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I may or may not get to the other stuff from this post, but I wanted to address this:

No. Here's why:

The goal is not to kill the child, but to save mom and if possible the baby. Abortion is always wrong, without exception, and should be abolished.

If delivering the baby in an ectopic pregnancy (tubal or otherwise) will save the mother, then you do that. But you don't stop in the middle of that delivery to kill the baby. That's intentionally taking the life of an innocent child, aka murder.

In other words, if the mother's life is in danger, why do you need to intentionally kill the baby when delivering the baby will save the mother? Why not just deliver the baby to save the mother, and let mom love the baby if/until he dies?

In a tubal pregnancy, the tube will burst before the baby is viable.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Yup. Which is why you deliver the baby and love the baby, not kill the baby.

You don't deliver from the fallopian tube like it was a viable baby that you could hold in your hands and the baby would hear your voice. If the tube hasn't already burst (a medical emergency) and the pregnancy aborted naturally, then either if caught very early (literally a few weeks) the treatment is chemical abortion and if later (~ 6-8 weeks) the tube may have to be surgically cut and the fetus/embryo removed. Sometimes the tube can be saved and sometimes it can't.

The fallopian tube cannot support a viable pregnancy. Tubal ruptures are the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester.

Is your answer still no? What would you do if your wife had a tubal ectopic pregnancy?
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Good Biblical one. Also philanderer, pig, womanizer. Wanker, maybe. There are some words which insult a man for promiscuity. (Typical, sadly, of UN to lose the plot.)
King David was all over it, but I don't recall the Bible referring to him with those terms.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You don't deliver from the fallopian tube like it was a viable baby that you could hold in your hands and the baby would hear your voice.

I was using "deliver" in the broader sense of "removing baby from mom's body."

So yes, "delivery" is the only valid option.

If the tube hasn't already burst (a medical emergency) and the pregnancy aborted naturally, then either if caught very early (literally a few weeks) the treatment is chemical abortion

Chemical abortion is still the killing of a baby, and should NEVER be used.

The correct option (and only moral one) is to remove the baby from the fallopian tube to save the mother, even if the baby cannot be saved. The goal should NEVER EVER be to kill the baby, but ALWAYS to save the mother and the baby if possible.

and if later (~ 6-8 weeks) the tube may have to be surgically cut and the fetus/embryo removed. Sometimes the tube can be saved and sometimes it can't.

Which is sad, but again, the goal is to save the mother, not kill the baby.

The fallopian tube cannot support a viable pregnancy.

I am well aware of this, Anna. My dad was an OB/GYN (retired now), so I have some knowledge of how this stuff works.

Tubal ruptures are the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester.

Whis is sad, but still not justification for killing babies.

Is your answer still no?

Correct.

What would you do if your wife had a tubal ectopic pregnancy?

(If I were actually married) I would be devastated, and so would she, and we would hope and pray that it would resolve itself, but acknowledge the fact that the baby will likely die. What we WOULDN'T DO is have the doctor intentionally kill the baby. Remove the baby if necessary, and love the baby until he dies, but never kill the baby.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I was using "deliver" in the broader sense of "removing baby from mom's body."

So yes, "delivery" is the only valid option.



Chemical abortion is still the killing of a baby, and should NEVER be used.

The correct option (and only moral one) is to remove the baby from the fallopian tube to save the mother, even if the baby cannot be saved. The goal should NEVER EVER be to kill the baby, but ALWAYS to save the mother and the baby if possible.



Which is sad, but again, the goal is to save the mother, not kill the baby.

You're killing the baby when you remove it from the fallopian tube.

I am well aware of this, Anna. My dad was an OB/GYN (retired now), so I have some knowledge of how this stuff works.

You weren't aware enough to know you couldn't relocate the embryo from the fallopian tube to the uterus, JR.

(If I were actually married) I would be devastated, and so would she, and we would hope and pray that it would resolve itself, but acknowledge the fact that the baby will likely die. What we WOULDN'T DO is have the doctor intentionally kill the baby. Remove the baby if necessary, and love the baby until he dies, but never kill the baby.

As would I have been had it happened to me. But the fact is the baby will die.

Removing the baby is killing the baby, so this is semantics. When you remove the baby it is, in fact, an abortion.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You're killing the baby when you remove it from the fallopian tube.

NO.

Intent matters here, Anna. The goal is not to kill the baby, even if the baby ends up dying as a result.

You weren't aware enough to know you couldn't relocate the embryo from the fallopian tube to the uterus, JR.

Actually, what happened here was that I thought I had read somewhere that it had become possible recently, but it seems I was mistaken. That doesn't mean I don't have a general idea of what I'm talking about, it just means that sometimes I'm wrong, and misremember things.

But the fact is the baby will die.

Yes, which is a tragedy.

But at least you're not murdering the baby.

Removing the baby is killing the baby,

No, removing the baby is removing the baby. The baby is still alive for a short period after removal. During that time, the doctors can save the mother, and then let her hold her tiny baby (1.5-3.5 cm) in her hands, and love her baby.

There is nothing wrong with letting a dying person die.

But it's murder to intentionally kill a dying person.

For example, and this should illustrate my point perfectly, if a man (and this has happened before, and it's very tragic and very graphic) gets stuck between two moving train cars, to where the knuckles of the connectors crush him in between them, the rail line will call his family, so that they can say their goodbyes, because the knuckles are the only thing holding his guts together. So he says his goodbyes, they say theirs, and they separate the cars, which causes his innards to spill out, killing him. But, while tragic, this isn't murder. Yes, their actions kill him, because there's literally no way to save him, but he's already a dead man, his body just hasn't caught up to that fact yet.

so this is semantics.

Words have meaning, Anna. And where issues of morality are concerned, those meanings are very important.

Intent is the determining factor here.

The intent of the doctor, in an ectopic pregnancy (and in ANY scenario, for that matter) should be "do no harm," which includes trying to save the mother, and if possible, the baby too.

When the doctor goes in and INTENTIONALLY KILLS the baby, that is, by definition, murder, and is a crime.

When the doctor goes in, and removes the baby, NOT stopping to kill him as he tries to save the mother's life, he has committed NO SUCH CRIME.

When you remove the baby it is, in fact, an abortion.

Yes, because that's what abortion means, to end something. The common usage of the word today means "to kill the baby in the womb," but in your sentence here, the normal definition of abortion is used, and in context, it refers to "the end of the pregnancy."

And rightly so, the difference being that while it is indeed the end to the pregnancy, there is no intentional killing of the baby.

Abortion is wrong because it's a baby and it's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby and that's because children are made in God's image and God said, "Do not kill the innocent."
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Something else:

You weren't aware enough to know you couldn't relocate the embryo from the fallopian tube to the uterus, JR.

I wonder how far we would be in medical technology if all the money that has been wasted on providing abortions was instead used on researching ways to save the babies in ectopic pregnancies.

I guarantee that we would be much, MUCH farther than we are today.

But that's what happens when a society rejects God, and goes against Him.

I'm reminded of Eugenie Scott, whom Bob Enyart interviewed in 1998 about "junk DNA" where she claimed "we're over the hump" on how much we know about DNA and genetics, yet she has been proven wrong, we're only scratching the surface when it comes to knowledge of how DNA works.

Rejection of God stunts the growth of society.

How many years have been wasted, how many opportunities squandered, by the left in their pursuit of satisfying their worldly desires?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Something else:



I wonder how far we would be in medical technology if all the money that has been wasted on providing abortions was instead used on researching ways to save the babies in ectopic pregnancies.

That money is a drop in the bucket compared to the money we spend on our military industrial complex. Maybe researchers are working on ways to save ectopic pregnancies. I don't know. It would be great if they are.
 
Last edited:

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The intent of the doctor, in an ectopic pregnancy (and in ANY scenario, for that matter) should be "do no harm," which includes trying to save the mother, and if possible, the baby too.

When the doctor goes in and INTENTIONALLY KILLS the baby, that is, by definition, murder, and is a crime.

When the doctor goes in, and removes the baby, NOT stopping to kill him as he tries to save the mother's life, he has committed NO SUCH CRIME.

Yes, because that's what abortion means, to end something. The common usage of the word today means "to kill the baby in the womb," but in your sentence here, the normal definition of abortion is used, and in context, it refers to "the end of the pregnancy."

And rightly so, the difference being that while it is indeed the end to the pregnancy, there is no intentional killing of the baby.

So then you would allow for exceptions in an abortion law for the health of the mother. This is the essence of what I'm trying to find out. Because without that exception, a doctor would not legally be able to remove that embryo.

I looked at this pretty comprehensive list of abortion laws in each state, and unless I missed something (I didn't follow links) even the strictest trigger laws have exceptions for the health of the mother and one of them even specifically mentions ectopic pregnancies.

 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
So then you would allow for exceptions in an abortion law for the health of the mother.

Now you're equivocating. I made it clear above what I was talking about.

Again, abortion can be used to mean either "the intentional killing of the baby in the womb" (where what's being aborted is the life of the baby) or it can mean "the ending of the pregnancy" (where what's being aborted is the process of the woman's pregnancy, not the baby's life).

I am talking about the latter.

By asking me if I would allow for exceptions in an abortion law for the health of the mother, you are referring to the former.

My answer has not changed. The answer to your question is still NO.

This is the essence of what I'm trying to find out. Because without that exception, a doctor would not legally be able to remove that embryo.

Wrong. A doctor removing the baby from the mother to save her life is not an abortion of the baby's life, but an abortion of the pregnancy process.

If there was no baby involved, then there would be no need for the distinction, Anna, and most people assume they are the same thing. But since there IS a baby involved, it means, especially since I made the distinction earlier, that it's INCREDIBLY DISHONEST of you to ask me such a question as if they DO mean the same thing.

I looked at this pretty comprehensive list of abortion laws in each state, and unless I missed something (I didn't follow links) even the strictest trigger laws have exceptions for the health of the mother and one of them even specifically mentions ectopic pregnancies.


If ANY law ends with "and then you can (intentionally) kill the baby," it is inherently immoral, and legitimizes murder of children.

Pastor Enyart often stated that even if Roe was overturned (as it now has been), abortion would still be legal because of laws put into place by RE-publican politicians and the "pro-life" movement.
 
Top