Ectopic Pregancy and Abortion Issues

I understand abortion for any reason is not permitted and is wrong.
But I want to bring up particular circumstances where the baby in the end is killed/dead.
Ectopic pregancy is one. And I do have a high chance of it happening because of scar tissue and cysts with my organs. (other circumstances brought up by other posters are welcomed)
This link talks some about this circumstance, and it is said that removing the tube with the baby inside (because it is now damaged with tissue) is acceptable.
However in my opinion, knowing that removing a tube will kill the baby, it is still killing a baby. Not saying we should not do it by any means! just in my eyes it is the same. Becaue if the tube was not removed and the baby only was, that tube is still functional (except in the case of emergency surgery because of a bleed out) the the ultimate reason why the tube could be removed is to remove the baby with it. wonders if a patch up of the tube is also possible?

And someone said that removing organs to prevent pregancies is a type of abortion…? (not on this forum but other catholics)

What if they are already damaged ahead of time (like mine with scaring and cysts) but still functional like the tube in the example above where it is permitted?

ps incase someone wants to know I am off of birth control since my period finally regluated. (taken for semi serious medical reason) - common with ovarian cysts.
And it appears fertility is low with my scaring and cysts.

Ectopic pregnancy is a serious medical issue. The pregnancy is practically nonviable from the start and poses a very serious risk to the mothers health.

Although there have been a few reported cases of women giving birth by cesarean section to live infants that were located outside the uterus, this is extremely rare. The chance of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to full term is so remote, and the risk to the woman so great, that it can never be recommended. It would be ideal if an ectopic pregnancy in the Fallopian tube could be saved by surgery to relocate it into the uterus. This concept has yet to become accepted as a successful procedure.

Personally, I fail to see the advantage in taking such a careless risk with the mother’s life.

The church prohibits “direct abortions”. Removing the tube is a therapeutic procedure designed to save the mother, not intended directly to kill the baby, though that is the unintended result. Because the death of the baby is not “direct” but rather an unintended (though certain) result of the procedure, it is not prohibited.

Removing diseased organs for therapeutic reasons is never a direct abortion. The Catholics on the “other site” are wrong.

So considering I have scaring and cysts which increases my risk and lowers my fertility (if it even exists and so far is showing it does not exist) Would it be wrong, if I had my organs removed since they are damaged anyway? The same senerio except I am avoid the death of a baby while taking damaged goods out.

I doubt you’ll find supporters of what amounts to preemptive sterilization on this site.

I would consult with a trusted physician on the matter to find out if there’s any significant health risk from leaving things as they are.

I do understand, however it is the same senerio except one having the baby already in there and one not.
How would it be ok to remove goods when the baby is in there causing a problem vs removing goods before a baby is there knowing you have a high risk of this situation coming? Esp when you are not hardly fertile
(infertility can still have ectopic pregancies)
That is my question and point.

Just seeing the Catholic view with this and others I stated in the OP

If you have organs removed from your body as an attempt to cure your body of some illness or because the diseased organs are harming you, this is licit.

If you wish to remove organs because you wish not to get pregnant, this is called sterilization, and it is not licit. It is immoral.

If a person has a good reason to avoid pregnancy, the couple can rely on complete abstinence or natural family planning to optimally time intercourse.

agreed, but it would be harming my baby and would harm me- if the pregancy is ectopic.

Either case, My aunt who has similar issues as I Had (scaring and cysts) to have everything taken out because it finally got so bad, she wouldnt stop bleeding.

Mine, however holds Cyst fluid for a very long time (after rupturing), makes me sick, and causes alot of pain and irrgular periods.

What I am asking, because of this medical issue that hightens my risk of ectopic pregancy even when claimed infertile (infertility actually hightens it even more), would it really be wrong to take the damaged goods out now vs waiting until an ectopic pregancy comes along then take it out with a baby in there? (which results in the death of the baby)

  1. You can’t predict an ectoptic pregnancy;
  2. You can’t get pregnant if you are “infertile”;
  3. You can’t be sterilized to avoid pregnancy;
  4. You can avoid pregnancy by abstinence;
  5. You can avoid pregnancy by NFP;
  6. You can have diseased organs removed now if you physician believes they are harming “you” (not a potential future baby).

Capice?

Fertility issues. Infertility is often caused by damaged tubes, and if you get pregnant while being treated for infertility, there’s a higher than average chance that the pregnancy will be ectopic.

babycenter.com/0_ectopic-pregnancy_229.bc?page=2

Yes you can have an ectopic pregancy while being labeled as infertile. That is why this qu exists

Multiple factors contribute to the relative risk of EP in women with infertility. Anything that hampers the migration of the embryo to the endometrial cavity could predispose women to ectopic gestation. The most logical explanation for the increasing frequency of EPs is previous pelvic infection; however, most patients presenting with an EP have no identifiable risk factor.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3493829/

The Seeker,

I’m sorry for your health struggles. I should have said that in my first post.

If the organs are harming you now (making you sick, causing dangerous bleeding, etc), you can morally have them removed now. You can not remove them to avoid pregnancy, even if that pregnancy is likely to be ectopic, which may be more likely in your case but is still relatively rare.

In sum, it’s not sinful to do something to cure yourself of a disease or illness, but it is sinful to sterilize yourself because of the risk of a disease occuring during pregnancy. If you need to avoid pregnancy, there are licit ways to do so that do not involve sterilizing yourself.

Not dangerous bleeding for me, but it does and can make me ill when fluid is setting in there for a month.

We’re not allowed to give medical advice on the forums. All I can say is that therapies intended to cure a disease are licit, even if they involve removing organs. I would suggest you discuss the situation with a doctor who may be able to offer solutions to this medical problem. I hope you find relief!

good posts… This is how it was explained to me… It is always best to seek the help of a priest regarding these matters.

I suppose I should ask a priest at this point.

removing the tube may be a treatment, but it would not happen if the baby was not in there… and since there is no option of saving the baby there is no intention of saving it.
The baby is killed by being taken out of a tube that would not be taken out otherwise if that baby was not in it. Which is why I see this as a type of abortion when it could be avoided ahead of time. (Since my risk is very high as it is) Why wait till you have to kill a person to remove damaged goods? We do not have the technology to transfer a fetus to the womb, nor to keep it alive and allow it to grow outside the womb.

I suppose this should be added to the list of things I do not understand Concerning Catholic teaching.

You’re seeing only two possible choices for yourself:

  1. Sterilize yourself so you cannot become pregnant or
  2. Become pregnant with an ectopic pregnancy and have to remove the fallopian tube and kill your unborn child.

But it’s not either/or. You also have the option to not become pregnant via moral means. You can abstain completely or learn natural family planning to time your intercourse. This way you neither sterilize yourself nor risk your life and the life of any children you conceive.

I would also urge you to really explore how likley an ectopic pregnancy would be for you. I know it becomes more of a risk the more scarring and inflammation you have, but I would ask your doctors if it’s just a risk or if it’s actually likely. Ask them what your odds of having a healthy pregnancy are.

Regarding the morality of removing the tube with the person inside, I sometimes think of it by way of the Titanic analogy. When the Titanic struck the iceburg, it ripped open a hole in the hull through several of the bulkheads. These chambers were designed with watertight doors that could close in an emergency to prevent the spread of water throughout the bottom of the ship. An alarm would sound before the doors locked to allow any crew members the opportunity to escape. But suppose the captain knew a crew member was somehow unable to leave the container he was working in. He’s going to die anyway if the ship sinks. The captain chooses to lock the door, even knowing that the crew member is down there, not intending to kill him, but because by closing the door he is able to save the ship and the other passengers. This is moral because the action (closing the door) is moral and the intention is to save the other passengers, not kill the crew member.

Would it be better if the captain closed the doors from the outset so the crew member couldn’t get stuck down there? Well, they wouldn’t be able to set sail without the steam room, but then, this analogy is being stretched past its purpose…

Ok I think I am starting to see now. I shall be praying for it to become more clear. Thank you.

The tube is being removed because it will shortly rupture, bleed and cause the mother’s death. The procedure is directed solely at the mother’s Body. There is nil ill intent towards the baby, and the mother benefits nought from the baby’s death. You have to try very hard to see that as murder of the baby!

but that tube would not shortly rupture if it was not for the baby. either case the above person, quoted below, explained it to me and I kinda get it now which is better than not at all.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.