Has there been any case (not hypothetical) where it was certain that abortion was medically necessary to save the life of the mother?
As the only method of treatment and in the developed world? I’ve yet to find one.
See that’s what I am wondering
And I am guessing you mean “direct abortion” instead of “medical abortion”. There are “chemical abortions” and these are also immoral when used as a direct abortion.
Ectopic pregnancies would be one.
Abortion is the direct killing of the child
In the Chilean Constitution, Abortion is illegal and punishable by imprisonment. The reason stated in the constitution was that modern medicine reached a point where it was no longer necessary to save a mother’s life.
From what I read from a Dr. Named Dr. Anthony Levantino who remarked on this (in bold):
In the case of a tubal pregnancy (where the embryo has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus), an ethical solution is to remove the mother’s fallopian tube through a procedure called a salpingectomy. Dr. Anthony Levatino states in a video interview that this procedure is not an abortion, which directly kills the child:
“Ectopic pregnancies are life-threatening. Treating an ectopic pregnancy is not doing an abortion— it is saving that woman’s life. It is that simple.”
There are direct abortions (medical aka surgical and chemical) and indirect abortions.
Direct abortion is always a grave matter.
Indirect abortion is not.
For example, mom has an ectopic tubal pregnancy. It is moral for a portion of her tube to be removed even though we know this will cause the tiny embryo to die, this is an indirect abortion.
There is a more popular medical treatment where the tube is opened and the living embryo scraped out, where the living embryo is squeezed out and another where a chemical dissolves the living embryo. These are direct abortions.
Does that make sense?
Yes that’s correct. My post above I think says what you are saying
I’d state this differently, there are both moral and immoral ways to treat ectopic pregnancies. It is not that simple.
That is true, I just put in his quote from the article I was reading, I’m sure he was talking about the moral one considering the article got it from a video and (that quote) probably didn’t say everything
The former Surgeon General of the U.S. said at one time that in his (over 30 something) years of practice he had never heard of or come across such a necessary case.
It is my understanding that in an ectopic pregnancy there is no chance for the baby to survive so removing the child and saving the mother is an entirely different situation than a normal pregnancy where the child COULD survive.
Yes. Did I say something against this?
No, I was just elaborating on your comment to clarify why removal of the child is not seen as morally wrong.
I actually listened to an interview with a licensed obstetrician who used to perform abortions and he addressed this topic specifically. He had some interesting things to say. He said that in order for the life of the mother to be in danger, the baby is advanced to the point of maturity that to end the pregnancy would require a partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortions take up to 2 to 3 days to dilate the cervix enough to perform the procedure. So in his experience he had never seen an instance where abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, because to do so would maintain the mother in a state of medical emergency that could actually result in her death. He said that the opposite is usually true. In order to save the mother, they usually induce labor, deliver the baby, and then provide medical care to ensure that the baby survives. It may occur that the baby does not survive; however, that is a separate issue from abortion. That was his take on the matter, and it makes a lot of sense. His feeling is that the argument that abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother is a straw man argument that ignores the medical facts.
So based on his opinion abortion is never medically necessary?
That’s what actually makes me so angry about arguments for legal second and third trimester abortions. The baby has to be delivered anyway.
I think most people don’t know that, truthfully. I didn’t.
Is there a treatment for this other than to remove the affected tube and thus terminate the pregnancy in the process?