Tuesday, August 13, 2019

The Question Of Tubal Pregnancies

A kerfuffle between Eponymous Flower and Live Action has arisen over the release of this video by Life Action.  Here is the video and my commentary will follow.

I believe the doctor is incorrect in claiming that all ectopic pregnancies will prove to be fatal to the babies involved.  In fact, a number of the children survived.  She seems to be confusing the term "ectopic pregnancy" with "tubal pregnancy".  It is quite common to confuse the two.  While tubal pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies, not all ectopic pregnancies are tubal.  The term "ectoopic pregnancy" means that the baby has implanted elsewhere besides the normal uterine wall.  He/she can implant in the tubes, but can also implant outside the uterine wall.  As noted earlier, some of those do survive.  However, I have no knowledge of a tubal pregnancy being successfully carried to term.

The author of the EF piece commits the same error in terminology - and quite a few other errors besides.  Some of those errors are committed by commenters who support Ms. Swetz's position.  For instance, David Martin erroneously states:

Abortion defined is the artificial ejection of the living child from the woman's body, which is exactly what happens in the "treatment" of an ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, it is an abortion. Ectopic pregnancy diagnoses are often just fabrications and used as excuses to eliminate the innocent.

This "definition" is extremely sloppy.  Notice that his definition doesn't touch upon deliberated death.  It might be helpful to differentiate between spontaneous abortion, commonly called miscarriage versus induced abortion, that which many prolifers simply call abortion.  The person committing the abortion always has as his/her purpose the intention of destroying the child.

Commenters named "Kathleen 1031" and "Dymphna" (also commenters on this blog), along with Peter Watson and "Fatty" attempted to interject some valid considerations into the overly simplistic take of Ms Swetz and others.  For their efforts they (particularly Mr. Watson) were treated derisively.  But don't take my word for it.  Pop over there yourselves.


  1. I was really surprised at Eponymous Flower and revolted by that David Martin character.

  2. She seems to be confusing the term "ectopic pregnancy" with "tubal pregnancy". It is quite common to confuse the two.

    No, she didn't. You didn't catch the "or somewhere outside the uterus". It's even in the visual.

    It's hard in under a minute to cover everything about ectopic pregnancies. Yes, it's unfortunate that the presenter gave a universal ruling on the survivability. However, the purpose of the video is to convince the viewer that (direct) abortions are never necessary to save the mother's life. [Even using the Church's language of "direct abortion" would be confusing to most listeners.] The false issue of saving the mother's life is one of the primary hammers that the abortion industry uses. Remove that, and we go a long ways.

    I'd guess that the few abdominal pregnancies that survived were not detected until late in the pregnancy (thus survivable). I doubt that in an early detection there would be any recommendation to "wait and see".

    1. She might be confusing the two in terms of their prognoses.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.