|
Post by susan on Jan 23, 2010 15:07:45 GMT -5
Doug Phillips doesn't feel there is any justification for terminating an ectopic pregnancy -- a pregnancy that implants outside the uterus, usually in one of the fallopian tubes. From my understanding, a baby couldn't survive in such a situation. Plus it is excruciatingly-painful and dangerous to the mother. Do any of you know women involved in the Patriarchy Movement who had tubal pregnancies? I am wondering about the practicalities of how such a situation would be dealt with, if even when the baby can't survive, you're supposed to let the pregnancy progress until it kills both mother and baby? Does anyone know of such a situation that was dealt with in the "Vision Forum" way (whatever that is)? To see the article where Doug talks about this, go to the link below. You have to scroll way down to find his article titled, "Paul Hill and Justifiable Homicide." www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2003/09/
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Jan 23, 2010 15:51:02 GMT -5
Disgusting. So instead of just the baby inevitably dying, both of them should die?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 23, 2010 17:16:36 GMT -5
I believe this is the situation caused by the legal climate in some latin american countries... while the abortion law *in theory* might allow for an abortion in such a case, it is so confusing that many doctors just refuse to perform it. Leading to the eventual rupture of the fallopian tube-- equivalent to a gunshot to the gut, and an excruciating death for the mother.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 23, 2010 19:10:54 GMT -5
Even the Catholic Church allows ending an ectopic pregnancy (there's some technicality about how it's done that makes it "not really murder" in their eyes), and it's pretty damn extreme about abortion.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 23, 2010 19:18:04 GMT -5
Even the Catholic Church allows ending an ectopic pregnancy (there's some technicality about how it's done that makes it "not really murder" in their eyes), and it's pretty damn extreme about abortion. the "technicality about how it's done" is simply that, to be acceptable to the catholic church, a significantly more dangerous procedure with permanent disfiguration to the woman must be used, rather than a simple chemical method that can be used extremely non-invasively. Rather, the catholic church says, that they can go in and remove the entire fallopian tube-- permanently damaging the woman's capability to have children, and is abdominal surgery with all it's risks and complications. They don't allow the normal, safest kind of early abortion *even when* they realize that there is no chance of a healthy child outcome.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 23, 2010 20:01:01 GMT -5
the "technicality about how it's done" is simply that, to be acceptable to the catholic church, a significantly more dangerous procedure with permanent disfiguration to the woman must be used, rather than a simple chemical method that can be used extremely non-invasively. Rather, the catholic church says, that they can go in and remove the entire fallopian tube-- permanently damaging the woman's capability to have children, and is abdominal surgery with all it's risks and complications. They don't allow the normal, safest kind of early abortion *even when* they realize that there is no chance of a healthy child outcome. Now, this makes me really sad and mad. I can't see it in any other way -- but as hatred of women!
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Jan 23, 2010 23:01:26 GMT -5
Even the Catholic Church allows ending an ectopic pregnancy (there's some technicality about how it's done that makes it "not really murder" in their eyes), and it's pretty damn extreme about abortion. It's the principle of double effect: an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable. Their reasoning is that the ectopic pregnancy causes changes in the Fallopian tube that in and of themselves would require the tube to be removed; i.e, the effect of the surgery is to remove a diseased organ, not to cause an abortion, so the operation is allowable. Of course, just about the only way that the Fallopian tube becomes "diseased" in that way is an ectopic pregnancy, but let's allow them their loopy reasoning if it actually works to a woman's benefit for once.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Jan 24, 2010 4:55:55 GMT -5
I can't find the article you link to, but I think I have read it before.
If memory doesn't fail me, Doug Phillips argues that only in a small percentage of cases women die due to fallopian tube rupture.
Another argument they throw out is that a mother is a coward if she chooses to save her life instead of her unborn baby's, but in this case, the baby is not going to live anyway, right? They praise a mother who will sacrifice her life for her child (even if the child dies along with her) and view it as faithfulness even if it costs her her life.
The underlying mentality is what bothers me most. Women are replaceable. We are here to fulfill one purpose: bear children for our husbands and for God. If we die in childbirth, our husbands can marry again and keep breeding. It's kind of like replacing an oven, only they have not yet reached the point that they believe it's ok to replace the oven when it stops working even if it hasn't died.
Their view of Scripture is so twisted! They can't seem to separate Biblical culture from God's mandates. And they can't seem to separate statements that communicate God's view of something "children are a blessing, blessed is the man (couple) who has many of them", from "thou shalt have as many children as biologically possible". They have to interpret every account to mean that we ought to/ought not to do something. For example, Onan's use of the oldest method for birth control. They fail to see WHY he "spilled his seed", and only see that he did it, shouldn't have, and neither should we.
Ack.... the more I read about these people, the more angry I am at them!
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Jan 27, 2010 11:34:30 GMT -5
Only a small percentage of women die from ectopic pregnancy BECAUSE OF MODERN MEDICAL INTERVENTION. Without easy access to surgery (to remove the ruptured tube and close off any broken blood vessels), and blood transfusions, the death rate from tubal pregnancy is almost 50%. Also, untreated tubal pregnancies that do *not* cause blood vessels to rupture *do* cause scarring that increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy. These people are idiots. Using methotrexate (the chemical "abortion" for ectopic pregnancies - it's the treatment I had for mine) is a more effective treatment that causes less harm to the mother.
|
|
|
Post by quiverof8 on Jun 1, 2010 21:44:18 GMT -5
A major CAUSE of tubal pregnancies in the first place ate IUD's and tubal legations. So if you avoid birth control you will probalby never have to deal wiht this situation
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 1, 2010 21:47:42 GMT -5
A major CAUSE of tubal pregnancies in the first place ate IUD's and tubal legations. So if you avoid birth control you will probalby never have to deal wiht this situation I have one word for you: BULLSHIT. That is all. ETA: OK, that was a bit harsh. Please link to actual REAL research that supports this, not anecdotes from someone's second cousin's neighbour's cat's previous owner. I have an anecdote for you: me. IUD: 5 years, no ectopic pregnancy; tubal ligation: 29 years, no ectopic pregnancy. QED
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 1, 2010 22:21:37 GMT -5
A major CAUSE of tubal pregnancies in the first place ate IUD's and tubal legations. So if you avoid birth control you will probalby never have to deal wiht this situation I have one word for you: BULLSHIT. That is all. ETA: OK, that was a bit harsh. Please link to actual REAL research that supports this, not anecdotes from someone's second cousin's neighbour's cat's previous owner. I have an anecdote for you: me. IUD: 5 years, no ectopic pregnancy; tubal ligation: 29 years, no ectopic pregnancy. QED I think some of the statistics that are used to bolster this false claim are that *IF* an IUD or sterilization procedure fails and pregnancy results, than more of those pregnancies are ectopic than the aggregate statistics of the general population. BUT, when you look at not the spread of *pregnancies* but the risk of an ectopic pregnancy of any given woman, the fact that an IUD or sterilization procedure vastly decreases the chances of pregnancy, the slight distortion of the 'natural' statistical spread of ectopic vs. normal pregnancies still results in a significantly reduced risk of having an ectopic pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 1, 2010 23:00:33 GMT -5
jemand wrote: As anecdotes go, I have another: my second child was conceived while I had an IUD. Perfectly normal pregnancy. He is a completely normal healthy human being, and I had less time between children than I had planned on but oh well. Again, might I add: horsepuckies. Show the research.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 2, 2010 8:05:52 GMT -5
jemand wrote: As anecdotes go, I have another: my second child was conceived while I had an IUD. Perfectly normal pregnancy. He is a completely normal healthy human being, and I had less time between children than I had planned on but oh well. Again, might I add: horsepuckies. Show the research. Here: www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/ectopicpreg.htmlwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12336503In general, 99% of pregnancies are intrauterine, and 1% are ectopic. IUD's are better at preventing intrauterine pregnancies than ectopic ones, so the statistics *of pregnancies* are skewed, but in general the IUD is effective at preventing pregnancies so the gross rates of ectopic pregnancies is reduced in women using them. (And of course, it's still more likely a pregnancy will be normal). Apparently tubal reversals really do carry an absolute increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, perhaps because of changing the fallopian tube's shape, -- in general surgery on fallopian tubes to treat infertility or any other reason apparently increases the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. However, there is also a correlation between age and ectopic pregnancy, and most women getting sterilized are older (partly because doctors just won't do it for younger women!), so this could explain some of the increase.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 24, 2010 12:02:15 GMT -5
The fallopian tubes have microscopic cilla in them that help to move the ova along the tube and into the uterus so, if you have a reversal or if you have an ectopic pregnancy some of these can be damaged increasing the chance of ectopic pregnancy in the future.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 8, 2010 19:43:53 GMT -5
I just posted this same info on the other thread, but I was so excited that a Pro-Life group has decided tho make a statement about this (on the date that the Vision Forum Baby Conference commences)! Note the new statement from the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists! AAPLOG Statement on Ectopic Pregnancy July 2010 Ectopic pregnancy refers to any pregnancy that is implanted outside the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube. By the time an ectopic pregnancy has been discovered (usually by 7 to 8 weeks gestation) the embryo has died in the majority of cases. However, the supporting tissues for the pregnancy often continue to grow and can cause life-threatening bleeding, either through rupture of the fallopian tube or other mechanisms. In a small number of cases a living embryo can be observed in the ectopic pregnancy. Unfortunately, this embryo will die in the near future if observation is continued, and the mother’s life remains in imminent danger from a life-threatening hemorrhage, before and after the death of the embryo. Continuation of such a pregnancy cannot result in the survival of a baby and entails a very substantial risk of maternal death or disability. Hence treatment is commenced to end the pregnancy surgically or medically. In certain cases, an additional benefit of early treatment may be preservation of fertility potential. This scenario is somewhat analogous to the case of a woman who develops an intrauterine infection with an unborn child that is too early to survive outside the womb. There is no chance for survival of the child, either inside or outside the womb, but there is a very real, imminent danger of death or disability for the mother. In these cases delivery is effected to preserve the life of the mother. Regrettably, in each of these clinical situations the child cannot be saved. In either case, the intent for the pro-life physician is not to kill the unborn child, but to preserve the life of the mother in a situation where the life of the child cannot be saved by current medical technology. For these reasons the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians recognizes the unavoidable loss of human life that occurs in an ectopic pregnancy, but does not consider treatment of ectopic pregnancy by standard surgical or medical procedures to be the moral equivalent of elective abortion, or to be the wrongful taking of human life. www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/what-is-aaplog%E2%80%99s-position-on-treatment-of-ectopic-pregnancy/
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jul 8, 2010 20:50:07 GMT -5
I am very glad you heard back. Thank you for your work. How big is this group? (I know little of the various reputation and strength of the particular pro-life obstetricians)
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 9, 2010 0:08:17 GMT -5
I am very glad you heard back. Thank you for your work. How big is this group? (I know little of the various reputation and strength of the particular pro-life obstetricians) From their "About Us" page: Allow us to introduce you to the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. We number 2,500 members and associates, and are recognized by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as a special interest group within the College.The gentleman I corresponded with was most interested in helping by way of a policy statement because he found all this so appalling. Goodness! it's 1AM! Gotta sleep!
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jul 9, 2010 2:58:00 GMT -5
What a wonderful response, Cindy. It is succinct and unequivocal and leaves no room for doubt as to their otherwise pro-life stance. Just the thing that was needed to counter the Baby Conference's dangerous position on this. You put so much work into this, you should be proud that you were able to accomplish this so quickly in such a risk averse environment.
I'd love to know what VF is saying this week, if they are standing by their insane position or modifying it in any way. I doubt they anticipated a preemptive strike, as it were.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jul 9, 2010 7:57:13 GMT -5
Well, this has really been two years of work (off and on) and Karen Campbell also did a great deal of work, too.
I'm now waiting for a Medical Ethics group to address the issue of the "alternative to healthcare" Samaritan Ministries from the perspective of woman's health. I don't know if they will issue a statement, but it at least will be something formally discussed within their organization. That does make a difference.
And maybe, after whatever is said by the NRLC state affiliate participating in the Baby Conference, maybe NRLC will come out with a statement about how state level and individual affiliates apply to the national group. I'm not holding my breath, however.
I wrote to my contact at AAPLOG that Christmas came in July for me!
God bless them.
On another board, I read a comment that said people were glad to know that there were still some sane and thoughtful pro-life people still around and still concerned. Or something like that. ;D
It was a good day.
|
|