Abortion in Some Cases

[msjones21]

I realize the abortion issue is like beating the dead horse, but I wanted to present two gray fuzzy areas regarding the morality of abortion and see what everyone has to say.

There are two sets of circumstances which are rarely ever mentioned during an abortion debate. Some people say that abortion is 100% unacceptable in any situation, even if the woman were to die from childbirth complications; however, there are two very rare situations in which there really is no way around "abortion". One is an Ectopic Pregnancy the other is cases in which the baby is stillborn.

In an Ectopic Pregnancy the fertilized egg implants itself to the inside of one of the fallopian tubes instead of the lining of the woman's uterus. It begins to grow within the fallopian tube. It's usually detected early and the only way to prevent the woman from hemorhaging is to cut that segment of the fallopian tube off of course once you do that the embryo will cease to live. I understand in cases where people say "if the woman would die from childbirth then who are we to interfere with God's will"; however, in cases of Ectopic Pregnancy there is no other alternative. It's not as if you let it go the baby can thrive because once it outgrows the fallopian tube the tube ruptures.

The second situation is when the baby is stillborn. This is what they used to perform a dilation & extraction procedure (or Partial Birth Abortion) for. The other alternative being a c-section or giving the woman Pitocin and seeing if she can expel the stillborn baby herself. The latter is usually very risky and complicated as the baby is already deceased and cannot assist in its own expulsion from the cervix. A c-section is also dangerous and can take months to recover from. The only other option is the later term D&X procedure.

I guess to simplify my question I would narrow it down to this:

In cases where the procedure is merely called an "abortion" for semantic's sake and it's not as if it is an elective procedure even though the woman can opt not to have it done; however, in both cases if there is no medical intervention the woman will die. Just like open heart surgery. I think we can all agree that it is not and elective procedure, it is reserved for life threatening medical conditions. If the person refused treatment we would find them to be foolish and negligent in regard to their own health. So, is "abortion" acceptable in the two scenarios I listed above, or do you stand firm in your stance that all abortions, regardless of circumstance, are immoral and if the woman is to die then so be it?

 

[tcampen]

Of course, those are examples that all reasonable people on both side of the debate will find as being appropriate for an abortion. Not sure you're going to get a lot of nay sayers on that one, except for those who cling to the good ol' slippery slope.

 

[msjones21]

Thanks for your response, tcampen. I agree with you. It seems to me that many pro-life activists shoot from the hip and boldly proclaim "abortion is wrong in ALL cases!" and yet I know (along with many others) that it's not always so black or white. There are those gray fuzzy areas where there is no definitive answer. People tend to overlook the circumstances listed above in an abortion debate. I tend to think it's either because they are not truly educated in female reproductive health matters OR they refuse to admit they may accept an abortion in those cases, thinking it would somehow diminish the solidity of their stance.

 

[Salsa_1960]

...there are two very rare situations in which there really is no way around "abortion". One is an Ectopic Pregnancy the other is cases in which the baby is stillborn......In cases where the procedure is merely called an "abortion" for semantic's sake and it's not as if it is an elective procedure even though the woman can opt not to have it done; however, in both cases if there is no medical intervention the woman will die.....I think we can all agree that it is not and elective procedure, it is reserved for life threatening medical conditions. If the person refused treatment we would find them to be foolish and negligent in regard to their own health. So, is "abortion" acceptable in the two scenarios I listed above, or do you stand firm in your stance that all abortions, regardless of circumstance, are immoral and if the woman is to die then so be it?

I would agree that abortion in these instances is ethical, moral and right. That, however, is rarely the argument. Most pro-lifers, [note that I avoid the word "all"], will not argue that abortion is these situations is a reasonable outcome/solution and is not in disagreement with their moral standards.

 

[jon1101]

I am anti-abortion but I agree that it ought to be allowed in both of those cases. Of course, both cases are very tragic, but I think not allowing abortion only intensifies the tragedy by requiring the woman to endure more pain.

-jon

 

[jayem]

I also certainly agree, although strictly speaking, I take a stillbirth to mean an intrauterine death. So an abortion in this situation is just removing an already dead fetus, not actually terminating the life of the fetus. There are any number of other legitimate indications for therapeutic, or medically necessary abortion. Just a few:

--Severe eclampsia, unresponsive to treatment. By definition, this occurs after 20 weeks. We're taking about a woman with sky high blood pressure, whose kidneys may be failing, and is having continous seizures. Fortunately, not common. The treatment is immediate delivery. But delivering a 20 or 22 week old fetus is tantamount to abortion, since even with very intensive support, survival chance of a premie at this age is quite remote.

--Rupture of the uterus. Also occurs later in pregnancy, sometimes the result of trauma. Only treatment is immediate hysterectomy. The fetus may have to be sacrificed to keep the mother from bleeding to death.

--Serious maternal medical problems. Especially malignancy and congestive heart failure. Some types of chemotherapy and radiation may actually induce abortion, or fetal abnormalities. A woman may chose to forgo treatment until she can deliver, but that may reduce her chance for remission. Heart failure may worsen as pregnancy progresses and could become life threatening. I personally know a woman who had a major heart attack when only 6 weeks pregnant. Even an academic cardiologist who specialized in treating heart disease in pregnancy felt an abortion was the safest course in her case. These are all very tough decisions, because it's hardly ever a clear black or white choice, but I don't think anyone should find moral fault if a woman terminates a pregnancy in cases like these.

While none of these are extremely common (except ectopic), such situations aren't that rare either. And I wonder how laws restricting abortion are going to handle legitimate medical needs. Physicians have to have leeway to make difficult judgements without fear of being second- guessed by prosecutors. These choices have to be made by women, their families, and their doctors--not by state legislators.