PDA

View Full Version : Congressman declares abortions never necessary to save womans life.



Spesh
10-19-2012, 05:38 PM
Republican Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois said after his Thursday debate against Democratic rival Tammy Duckworth that abortions are never necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, because modern technology has eliminated the risks of childbearing.

Walsh was defending his position that abortion should be outlawed with no exceptions, which is also the Republican Party's official stance on the issue.

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" of a pregnant woman's life being at risk, he told reporters after the debate. "There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing." He added that "advances in science and technology" meant that abortion is never necessary for the health of a mother.

Walsh, a freshman Congressman, is currently trailing Duckworth, a veteran of the Iraq War, in the polls.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/congressman-says-abortions-never-necessary-save-life-mother-175130900--election.html

Wonder why he's losing in the polls. 10 to 1 he questions why he lost the woman voting block after the election.

Statler Waldorf
10-19-2012, 05:50 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/congressman-says-abortions-never-necessary-save-life-mother-175130900--election.html

Wonder why he's losing in the polls. 10 to 1 he questions why he lost the woman voting block after the election.

Itís a shame we live in a country where a person has to support murder in order to get a majority of women to vote for him. Kudos Walsh for standing up for what is right.

Spesh
10-19-2012, 05:55 PM
It’s a shame we live in a country where a person has to support murder in order to get a majority of women to vote for him. Kudos Walsh for standing up for what is right.

I to applaud his stance on alienating women. Admittedly, I look forward to great laughs when he loses the election and the right starts whining incoherently about how unfair it was and how the poll numbers were really doctored.

MoFinz
10-19-2012, 06:41 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/congressman-says-abortions-never-necessary-save-life-mother-175130900--election.html

Wonder why he's losing in the polls. 10 to 1 he questions why he lost the woman voting block after the election.

Just curious, is he factually incorrect? I dont presume to tell women what they can and cant do, but i'd love to know if his stance can be disproven. I've never heard that one before.

Locke
10-19-2012, 06:57 PM
Just curious, is he factually incorrect? I dont presume to tell women what they can and cant do, but i'd love to know if his stance can be disproven. I've never heard that one before.

Sounds like he is stating that women never die during childbirth anymore, which is completely false.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

According to that study, the U.S. is actually one of the worst at approximately 17 mothers dying during birth out of every 100,000 births. I hate that these politicians lie like no one's business and no one calls them out on it...

Spesh
10-19-2012, 06:59 PM
Just curious, is he factually incorrect? I dont presume to tell women what they can and cant do, but i'd love to know if his stance can be disproven. I've never heard that one before.

There are medical conditions that exists that threaten a womans ability to survive a child birth. Declaring "none such exist" is factually incorrect. Medical professionals will undoubtedly side against him.


Medical experts note that there are some cases where the only option in the case of complications sustained during pregnancy is to abort the foetus. PubMed Health, the online medical library funded by the National Center for Biotechnology Information notes that some complications in pregnancy, such as an ectopic pregnancy, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001897/) are life-threatening to the mother. "The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life," the resource states.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/19/republican-joe-walsh-abortion-absolutely-unneccesary

Another article about the remarks but has an example of life threatening conditions.

Tetragrammaton
10-19-2012, 07:39 PM
The change in Republican policy to oppose abortion even in the case of the health of the mother is the clearest sign that the Republican Party doesn't actually want to outlaw abortion. No doctor is going to sit and watch someone die because of a curable condition.

CedarPhin
10-19-2012, 07:57 PM
Dude gives the real Joe Walsh a bad name.

TrojanFin
10-19-2012, 09:22 PM
C'mon... didn't you guys all watch that abortion scene in Prometheus? It's amazing what we can do with technology these days.

In all seriousness... the guy's wrong. You should question when someone makes absolute statements such as "always" or "never" because there is usually an exception.

Dolphins9954
10-19-2012, 09:39 PM
It’s a shame we live in a country where a person has to support murder in order to get a majority of women to vote for him. Kudos Walsh for standing up for what is right.

Hell yeah Pro-Life!!!! We need to stand together and defend life!!! No wars and death penalty too!!! High Five!!!!

KTOWNFINFAN
10-22-2012, 11:22 PM
There are medical conditions that exists that threaten a womans ability to survive a child birth. Declaring "none such exist" is factually incorrect. Medical professionals will undoubtedly side against him.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/19/republican-joe-walsh-abortion-absolutely-unneccesary

Another article about the remarks but has an example of life threatening conditions.People die when having their tonsels and appendix removed as well, any kind of surgery presents SOME risk. But to use the safety of the mother as a reason to support abortion is not being realistic. Most mothers who are told there is complications and there is a 50% chance you won't survive (which is WAAAAY higher than any I have heard of) would still be willing to take the chance to save their child. Just like fathers and mothers have put their lives in danger when wild animals, armed robberies, machinery, or other forces are threating their children.

TheWalrus
10-22-2012, 11:27 PM
People die when having their tonsels and appendix removed as well, any kind of surgery presents SOME risk. But to use the safety of the mother as a reason to support abortion is not being realistic. Most mothers who are told there is complications and there is a 50% chance you won't survive (which is WAAAAY higher than any I have heard of) would still be willing to take the chance to save their child. Just like fathers and mothers have put their lives in danger when wild animals, armed robberies, machinery, or other forces are threating their children.

Research "ectopic pregnancy," then come back and tell me how that's at all similar to a parent protecting their child from a lion.

KTOWNFINFAN
10-22-2012, 11:31 PM
The change in Republican policy to oppose abortion even in the case of the health of the mother is the clearest sign that the Republican Party doesn't actually want to outlaw abortion. No doctor is going to sit and watch someone die because of a curable condition.
:lol:
So what you are saying is "no doctor would sit and watch someone die, when he could kill someone else to possibily save the first" ?? WOW!!!

Again show me more than one situation out of 100,000 cases where this is the issue. Show me the cases where a doctor says, "you are going to die unless we kill your child". With C-sections and all the other options that doctors have today there just are never these situations. I mean show me a mother that if they said there is a 80% you die if we don't kill your child that wouldn't take the chance!!! This isn't even a realistic arguement, please stop with this nonesense. You lose all credibility.

tylerdolphin
10-22-2012, 11:38 PM
Im not a fan of abortion as birth control really, but I think its the height of hypocrisy to call abortion to save a woman's life murder, but ignore the fact that such a law would directly lead to women dying. I wont even get into how laughably silly it is to be pro-life and for the death penalty.

TheWalrus
10-22-2012, 11:41 PM
:lol:
So what you are saying is "no doctor would sit and watch someone die, when he could kill someone else to possibily save the first" ?? WOW!!!

Again show me more than one situation out of 100,000 cases where this is the issue. Show me the cases where a doctor says, "you are going to die unless we kill your child". With C-sections and all the other options that doctors have today there just are never these situations. I mean show me a mother that if they said there is a 80% you die if we don't kill your child that would take the chance!!! This isn't even a realistic arguement, please stop with this nonesense. You lose all credibility.

1-2.5% of pregnancies are ectopic.

KTOWNFINFAN
10-22-2012, 11:50 PM
Research "ectopic pregnancy," then come back and tell me how that's at all similar to a parent protecting their child from a lion.OK I just read Wikidepedia's entry. Now what is your question?? Look this isn't as hard as some of you are making it. Are their some times that complications will arise and one or both mother and child will lose their life?? YES, they are rare but it happens. You are trying to save BOTH lives, one is not more important than the other. Just like if you came up to a car accident and both the mother and a two year old were both injured, you would try to save them both. If the mother was already dead it might be possible that the only way you could save the child would be to cut the mother in half to get to the child, or visa versa. You would do that. If one was so injured they couldn't be saved and one was savageable you might still do it, but that is a total 1 in a million situation. People are trying to say a parent has the right to kill their child because children isn't something they want to deal with at the time, and then some how trying to tie that in to obsurd situations like life or death.

Just start with the fact that life is life and one is not more important than the other and you will be able to figure the rest out.

TheWalrus
10-23-2012, 12:08 AM
OK I just read Wikidepedia's entry. Now what is your question?? Look this isn't as hard as some of you are making it. Are their some times that complications will arise and one or both mother and child will lose their life?? YES, they are rare but it happens. You are trying to save BOTH lives, one is not more important than the other. Just like if you came up to a car accident and both the mother and a two year old were both injured, you would try to save them both. If the mother was already dead it might be possible that the only way you could save the child would be to cut the mother in half to get to the child, or visa versa. You would do that. If one was so injured they couldn't be saved and one was savageable you might still do it, but that is a total 1 in a million situation. People are trying to say a parent has the right to kill their child because children isn't something they want to deal with at the time, and then some how trying to tie that in to obsurd situations like life or death.

Just start with the fact that life is life and one is not more important than the other and you will be able to figure the rest out.

Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not choosing who lives. It's about choosing whether anyone lives.

There are between 67,000 and 167,000 ectopic pregnancies in this country EACH YEAR. That's a lot of mothers -- some of which already have children who need them -- you want to kill, buddy. Congrats.

Spesh
10-23-2012, 12:30 AM
People die when having their tonsels and appendix removed as well, any kind of surgery presents SOME risk. But to use the safety of the mother as a reason to support abortion is not being realistic. Most mothers who are told there is complications and there is a 50% chance you won't survive (which is WAAAAY higher than any I have heard of) would still be willing to take the chance to save their child. Just like fathers and mothers have put their lives in danger when wild animals, armed robberies, machinery, or other forces are threating their children.

I didnt share a view on abortion one way or another in this thread. I said that there are conditions in which the mother can die unless she receives an abortion. Science agrees.

Moral of this story is: the Congressman is wrong.

Tetragrammaton
10-23-2012, 01:00 AM
:lol:
So what you are saying is "no doctor would sit and watch someone die, when he could kill someone else to possibily save the first" ?? WOW!!!

Again show me more than one situation out of 100,000 cases where this is the issue. Show me the cases where a doctor says, "you are going to die unless we kill your child". With C-sections and all the other options that doctors have today there just are never these situations. I mean show me a mother that if they said there is a 80% you die if we don't kill your child that wouldn't take the chance!!! This isn't even a realistic arguement, please stop with this nonesense. You lose all credibility.

Don't be obnoxious. If you want to respond to me, respond to what I said, not what you want to pretend I said.

Gonzo
10-23-2012, 01:16 AM
Sounds like he is stating that women never die during childbirth anymore, which is completely false.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

According to that study, the U.S. is actually one of the worst at approximately 17 mothers dying during birth out of every 100,000 births. I hate that these politicians lie like no one's business and no one calls them out on it...
The rate increased to 21 in every 100,000 live births, putting us "behind Western Europe, Canada and Australia and alongside Iran, Hungary and Turkey," but that's another issue...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/05/half-as-many-women-dying-in-pregnancy-childbirth-as-20-years-ago.html

But abortions are "never necessary" because modern technology has "eliminated the risks of childbirth."

He lied. If he wants to oppose abortion based on his religious beliefs, fine, that's his right and I can respect that, even though I wholeheartedly disagree. But to flat out lie and to have the audacity to try and use science to defend his position...

Statler Waldorf
10-23-2012, 04:09 PM
The change in Republican policy to oppose abortion even in the case of the health of the mother is the clearest sign that the Republican Party doesn't actually want to outlaw abortion. No doctor is going to sit and watch someone die because of a curable condition.

Pregnancy is now a “curable condition”? That’s downright barbaric.


In all seriousness... the guy's wrong. You should question when someone makes absolute statements such as "always" or "never" because there is usually an exception.

You’re making an absolute statement about questioning absolute statements? Nice, lol.


People die when having their tonsels and appendix removed as well, any kind of surgery presents SOME risk. But to use the safety of the mother as a reason to support abortion is not being realistic. Most mothers who are told there is complications and there is a 50% chance you won't survive (which is WAAAAY higher than any I have heard of) would still be willing to take the chance to save their child. Just like fathers and mothers have put their lives in danger when wild animals, armed robberies, machinery, or other forces are threating their children.

Well put!! The attention needs to be put on mothers who would choose not to risk their own lives in the slightest but rather destroy the life of their child, what kind of parent would do that?


Im not a fan of abortion as birth control really, but I think its the height of hypocrisy to call abortion to save a woman's life murder, but ignore the fact that such a law would directly lead to women dying. I wont even get into how laughably silly it is to be pro-life and for the death penalty.

Tyler, why can’t someone just be “pro-innocent life” and support capital punishment for the worst our society has to offer and still be against the destruction of innocent human life in the womb? I think there’s an obvious distinction between capital punishment and abortion.


There are between 67,000 and 167,000 ectopic pregnancies in this country EACH YEAR. That's a lot of mothers -- some of which already have children who need them -- you want to kill, buddy. Congrats.

The vast majority of those cases will end in a natural miscarriage and not require an abortion so you are distorting the facts to try and justify the murder of millions of babies each year, congrats.

tylerdolphin
10-23-2012, 04:21 PM
Tyler, why can’t someone just be “pro-innocent life” and support capital punishment for the worst our society has to offer and still be against the destruction of innocent human life in the womb? I think there’s an obvious distinction between capital punishment and abortion.

In a perfect legal system, you could certainly make that argument. But the fact is that innocent people die at the hands of the death penalty. I assume youd argue that even aborting a few babies a year for no reason is wrong and immoral. How then can you justify the risk of killing an innocent person via capital punishment? Im never going to feel bad about psychos who actually did messed up stuff getting offed, but the fact is you cant off those without risking innocent lives. Thats the hypocrisy.

Tetragrammaton
10-23-2012, 04:28 PM
Pregnancy is now a “curable condition”? That’s downright barbaric.

If you have half as many degrees as you claim to have, misinterpretation like this is unforgivable.

JackFinfan
10-23-2012, 04:37 PM
You’re making an absolute statement about questioning absolute statements? Nice, lol.

Actually he said "there is usually an exception." If he had said there is always an exception then your insult would have actually made sense.

TheWalrus
10-23-2012, 04:38 PM
The vast majority of those cases will end in a natural miscarriage and not require an abortion so you are distorting the facts to try and justify the murder of millions of babies each year, congrats.

Says who?

And either way, given that the pregnancy will not come to term in any case (since there is no known way to move an ectopic pregnancy to a viable area), why risk fallopian tube rupturing, which will lead to death if untreated? Or do you not really care if it ruptures?

This thread is not about the abortion debate generally. It's about whether abortion to save the life of the mother a) a valid way to frame this aspect of the debate, and/or b) is justified.

Statler Waldorf
10-23-2012, 05:42 PM
In a perfect legal system, you could certainly make that argument. But the fact is that innocent people die at the hands of the death penalty. I assume youd argue that even aborting a few babies a year for no reason is wrong and immoral. How then can you justify the risk of killing an innocent person via capital punishment? Im never going to feel bad about psychos who actually did messed up stuff getting offed, but the fact is you cant off those without risking innocent lives. Thats the hypocrisy.

I think there is a difference between risking innocent life and knowingly destroying innocent life. Abortion is the intentional and destruction of life we know is innocent. If there was someone on death row that we knew was innocent I would not support killing them, so I think I am consistent on that point. Are you suggesting that a person cannot drive a car because it puts innocent people at risk since far more people are killed in car accidents each year than by lethal injection? I just think intent and knowledge plays a role in the situation.


If you have half as many degrees as you claim to have, misinterpretation like this is unforgivable.

Oh please, stop trying to wriggle your way out of this, you know very well that the condition you were referring to was a pregnancy and the “cure” you were referring to was an abortion.


Actually he said "there is usually an exception." If he had said there is always an exception then your insult would have actually made sense.
Not quite Jack :- ) If you notice he began his statement with an absolute “should” statement, his reason for a person doing this was just not absolute but it seems like he wants us to always question absolute statements.
“You should question when someone makes absolute statements “

I’ll give you an example, “You should always check to make sure a gun is loaded because SOMETIMES people forget to unload them.” This is still an absolute “should” statement even though it has a non-absolute reason behind it.

Says who?
The very material you recommended we all read concerning those types of pregnancies.

JackFinfan
10-23-2012, 06:05 PM
Not quite Jack :- ) If you notice he began his statement with an absolute “should” statement, his reason for a person doing this was just not absolute but it seems like he wants us to always question absolute statements.
“You should question when someone makes absolute statements “

I’ll give you an example, “You should always check to make sure a gun is loaded because SOMETIMES people forget to unload them.” This is still an absolute “should” statement even though it has a non-absolute reason behind it.


"You should question when someone makes absolute statements such as "always" or "never" because there is usually an exception."

He said "should" and "usually" I don't see an "always" in there. If he said you "should always question" then you'd be correct.

Tetragrammaton
10-23-2012, 06:49 PM
Oh please, stop trying to wriggle your way out of this, you know very well that the condition you were referring to was a pregnancy and the “cure” you were referring to was an abortion.

No I was not. You are a liar and a bad person.

tylerdolphin
10-23-2012, 07:03 PM
I think there is a difference between risking innocent life and knowingly destroying innocent life. Abortion is the intentional and destruction of life we know is innocent. If there was someone on death row that we knew was innocent I would not support killing them, so I think I am consistent on that point. Are you suggesting that a person cannot drive a car because it puts innocent people at risk since far more people are killed in car accidents each year than by lethal injection? I just think intent and knowledge plays a role in the situation.

Apples and oranges. Driving is necessary for many. Killing people isnt. Also, driving does not serve the purpose of killing people whereas execution does.

Basically your position comes down to "I dont care if an innocent person here and there dies because of capital punishment, but abortion is a huge sin because it kills innocent lives and life is precious."

The spin there is comical.

TheWalrus
10-23-2012, 07:19 PM
The very material you recommended we all read concerning those types of pregnancies.

I must have missed it. Can you perhaps post the link that says that?

Also, can you tell me what you think should be done about an ectopic pregnancy that has not miscarried and is at the point in it's development where it is threatening to burst the fallopian tube?

Statler Waldorf
10-24-2012, 04:07 PM
He said "should" and "usually" I don't see an "always" in there. If he said you "should always question" then you'd be correct.

How do you know which absolute statements have exceptions unless you question them all? How do you know which guns are loaded unless you check them all? I was simply following his advice and questioning his absolute statement.


No I was not. You are a liar and a bad person.

What was the condition you were referring to and what was the cure you were referring to? Simply calling me a liar isn’t defending your position at all.


Apples and oranges. Driving is necessary for many. Killing people isnt. Also, driving does not serve the purpose of killing people whereas execution does.

Driving isn’t necessary at all, many people don’t drive. So you are saying it is ok to risk the lives of innocent people so you can drive a car but God forbid you execute someone who was convicted by a court of law of a capital crime? That doesn’t make a wink of sense. Not only this, but do you not support having a prison system at all because we may lock an innocent person up for the rest of their life? I think you’re the one who is inconsistent on this issue; I will always stand up for innocent life.


I must have missed it. Can you perhaps post the link that says that?


“n a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades vessels and will cause bleeding. This intratubal bleeding hematosalpinx expels the implantation out of the tubal end as a tubal abortion. Tubal abortion is a common type of miscarriage.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy


Also, can you tell me what you think should be done about an ectopic pregnancy that has not miscarried and is at the point in it's development where it is threatening to burst the fallopian tube?

Let the pregnancy take its natural course, there have been cases of both mother and baby surviving the ectopic pregnancy. It’s not a doctor’s job, nor should it ever be, to start deciding to definitely end one person’s life in order to possibly save another’s. We should be spending all of our time and effort searching for ways to prevent these sorts of pregnancies.

trojanma
10-24-2012, 04:32 PM
“n a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades vessels and will cause bleeding. This intratubal bleeding hematosalpinx expels the implantation out of the tubal end as a tubal abortion. Tubal abortion is a common type of miscarriage.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

Let the pregnancy take its natural course, there have been cases of both mother and baby surviving the ectopic pregnancy. It’s not a doctor’s job, nor should it ever be, to start deciding to definitely end one person’s life in order to possibly save another’s. We should be spending all of our time and effort searching for ways to prevent these sorts of pregnancies.

I am sorry but this statement is preposterous.
You obviously don't fully appreciate what an ectopic pregnancy is.

It essentially is any pregnancy that isn't in the Uterus.
97% of the time the ectopic pregnancy is the fallopian tube which is smaller than a drinking straw. How do anticipate this pregnancy working?
Yes there are a few report FEW reports of this happening outside the uterus but in the abdominal cavity where a baby survived.

In some stable cases(or ones where they don't know where it is) they watch it and pray that the fetus terminates itself. No one in their right mind expects the fetus to be carried to term.

So you are telling me that if your wife or sister all of a sudden came up with vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain was rushed to the ER found to have an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube.
Given the option of life saving surgery vs. the high possibility of tubal rupture and death(where the fetus has only an infinitesimal chance to survive anyway). You guys would walk out?

Really?!?!?!

trojanma
10-24-2012, 04:38 PM
Bottom line if the fetus is in the abdomen then there is a chance but this represents like 1% of ectopic pregnancies.

TheWalrus
10-24-2012, 04:44 PM
“n a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades vessels and will cause bleeding. This intratubal bleeding hematosalpinx expels the implantation out of the tubal end as a tubal abortion. Tubal abortion is a common type of miscarriage.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

That does not mean most ectopic pregnancies are resolved that way, which is the way you phrased it earlier. Nice try though.


Let the pregnancy take its natural course, there have been cases of both mother and baby surviving the ectopic pregnancy. It’s not a doctor’s job, nor should it ever be, to start deciding to definitely end one person’s life in order to possibly save another’s. We should be spending all of our time and effort searching for ways to prevent these sorts of pregnancies.

Which means allowing a fetus to grow until it rips open the fallopian tube. At that point you do what?

Statler Waldorf
10-24-2012, 05:11 PM
So you are telling me that if your wife or sister all of a sudden came up with vaginal bleeding and abdominal pain was rushed to the ER found to have an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube.
Given the option of life saving surgery vs. the high possibility of tubal rupture and death(where the fetus has only an infinitesimal chance to survive anyway). You guys would walk out?

Really?!?!?!

Yes of course, there’s a chance they both could survive and that’s the decision that has to be made. If someone came up to you and said, “Here’s the situation, your wife might die, she might not, but if we kill your baby, she still has a chance of dying but she probably won’t die, but your baby definitely will die.” You’d seriously kill your baby in that situation? You’d be crazy! You have to choose the only option that gives them both a chance to live and that’s what I said I’d choose.


That does not mean most ectopic pregnancies are resolved that way, which is the way you phrased it earlier. Nice try though.

You highlighted the wrong part of the quote, you missed the part where it said that most of these types of pregnancies cause bleeding, and this bleeding results in a natural abortion. Nice try though.

Which means allowing a fetus to grow until it rips open the fallopian tube. At that point you do what?

Take whatever surgical measures give both the baby and the mother a chance to live, performing an abortion doesn’t give the baby a chance to live so that is not an option, why do you put the life of the mother above the life of the baby? That makes no sense at all. We need to develop methods of preventing these types of pregnancies; unfortunately allowing abortions makes that not a priority anymore because there’s no longer a need for it.

TheWalrus
10-24-2012, 05:36 PM
You highlighted the wrong part of the quote, you missed the part where it said that most of these types of pregnancies cause bleeding, and this bleeding results in a natural abortion. Nice try though.

The article clearly says half of ectopic pregnancies resolve without treatment. The other half end with surgery, meaning an abortion, to prevent catastrophic bleeding and death.

Nowhere is there an option where the pregnancy comes to term. Either the body resolves it or the fetus continues to grow until it rips open the fallopian tube, at which point it is still too undeveloped to survive in an incubator.

In other words, the baby always dies. Whether the body does it or a doctor does it before it rips open the fallopian tube or after it does, the result is the same.


Take whatever surgical measures give both the baby and the mother a chance to live, performing an abortion doesn’t give the baby a chance to live so that is not an option, why do you put the life of the mother above the life of the baby? That makes no sense at all. We need to develop methods of preventing these types of pregnancies; unfortunately allowing abortions makes that not a priority anymore because there’s no longer a need for it.

There is no chance for the baby to live. The cases of babies surviving tubal pregnancies are completely unheard of, which given that these pregnancies are not exactly rare, is really saying something. It is not putting the life of the mother above the baby, it is deciding whether the mother will live at all. You think her life should be put in grave danger for no reason.

I actually agree more research money should be put into this. I am, in fact, generally against abortion. But these are fairly easy exceptions only an absolutist without any common sense could take issue with. That's why I chose it.

trojanma
10-24-2012, 05:38 PM
Listen to me I will repeat this as simply as I can because either you mistook my post or you are simply being difficult or blinded by your faith whatever.
I am not an Ob/gyn but I am a licensed board certified physician.

If a loved one has an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube(where 97% of them are).
The odds that the fetus survives are zero to.0000001%. I will refrain from saying it has never happened because I don't have proof of that, but it is about as close to never as I can get.

Fetal survival in that situation is not even considered. The cases of fetal survival are extremely rare and exclusively outside the fallopian tube. Perhaps one case every 5 years.

If untreated and simply allowed to rupture the odds of a major complication to your loved one is very high. The specific odds of death would depend on when you would choose to seek medical attention.
If you don't seek medical attention then the mortality risk is probably very high 90%. People simply don't survive untreated massive internal bleeding.

So if treated the odds of maternal survival are very good.
If untreated then the odds of maternal survival are very very low.

The fetus is not going to survive this regardless.

PATSSUCK
10-24-2012, 05:45 PM
How can people be this dense?

Locke
10-24-2012, 07:01 PM
Listen to me I will repeat this as simply as I can because either you mistook my post or you are simply being difficult or blinded by your faith whatever.
I am not an Ob/gyn but I am a licensed board certified physician.

If a loved one has an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube(where 97% of them are).
The odds that the fetus survives are zero to.0000001%. I will refrain from saying it has never happened because I don't have proof of that, but it is about as close to never as I can get.

Fetal survival in that situation is not even considered. The cases of fetal survival are extremely rare and exclusively outside the fallopian tube. Perhaps one case every 5 years.

If untreated and simply allowed to rupture the odds of a major complication to your loved one is very high. The specific odds of death would depend on when you would choose to seek medical attention.
If you don't seek medical attention then the mortality risk is probably very high 90%. People simply don't survive untreated massive internal bleeding.

So if treated the odds of maternal survival are very good.
If untreated then the odds of maternal survival are very very low.

The fetus is not going to survive this regardless.

Is Statler seriously arguing medicine with an actual MD...?

phins_4_ever
10-24-2012, 07:35 PM
Is Statler seriously arguing medicine with an actual MD...?

Not only that but Statler would let his wife die - God's will. My goodness.

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 03:14 PM
The article clearly says half of ectopic pregnancies resolve without treatment. The other half end with surgery, meaning an abortion, to prevent catastrophic bleeding and death.

The American Academy of Family Physicians puts the figures at 68-77 percent of all cases of Ectopic Pregnancies resolve themselves naturally, so I stand by my claim that most result in a miscarriage.


Nowhere is there an option where the pregnancy comes to term. Either the body resolves it or the fetus continues to grow until it rips open the fallopian tube, at which point it is still too undeveloped to survive in an incubator.

Claiming the baby cannot survive in a tubal pregnancy is a complete myth, in 1999 a baby boy who had developed completely inside the fallopian tube was delivered by a group of surgeons at King’s College, today both the boy and his mother are just fine. Who knows how many more babies would be with us today if more people took the approach I am advocating.


There is no chance for the baby to live. The cases of babies surviving tubal pregnancies are completely unheard of, which given that these pregnancies are not exactly rare, is really saying something. It is not putting the life of the mother above the baby, it is deciding whether the mother will live at all. You think her life should be put in grave danger for no reason.

Yet I was able to find an example of a baby surviving a tubal pregnancy in a matter of minutes, the reason there are not more cases like this is because people like you are advocating killing the baby before you have any idea whether he/she will survive or not. Tubal ruptures leading to the death of the mother are extremely rare; you’re just trying to use scare tactics to justify your position. Let the scenario play out and see if both the mother and the baby can be saved, it’s happened before.


I actually agree more research money should be put into this. I am, in fact, generally against abortion. But these are fairly easy exceptions only an absolutist without any common sense could take issue with. That's why I chose it.

More money will never be allocated to finding a preventive cure until the condition is no longer allowed to be “treated” by killing the baby, once we outlawed that you’d see a preventive cure developed within 5-8 years tops. Cures are driven solely by demand for them.




If a loved one has an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube(where 97% of them are).
The odds that the fetus survives are zero to.0000001%. I will refrain from saying it has never happened because I don't have proof of that, but it is about as close to never as I can get.

That’s just it, it has happened! Obviously the odds of the baby surviving are far greater than you seem to think because most people in that situation do not give the baby a chance to survive and yet we have a documented case of a baby surviving in that situation. The statistic that has been overblown in this discussion are the chances of the mother actually dying from a tubal rupture, this rarely happens.


Fetal survival in that situation is not even considered. The cases of fetal survival are extremely rare and exclusively outside the fallopian tube. Perhaps one case every 5 years.

You’re right, nobody considers fetal survival in these situations and that’s the problem. I am saying we should consider it in such situations because it’s a real possibility.


If untreated and simply allowed to rupture the odds of a major complication to your loved one is very high. The specific odds of death would depend on when you would choose to seek medical attention.

Simply untrue, the majority of these cases resolve themselves long before any threat of rupturing is present, and even if rupturing does occur the odds of dying from a tubal rupture are less than 1 in 2000 (there’s 25-50 cases of death resulting from tubal ruptures in the US each year, there’s over 100,000 reported cases of tubal rupture occurring in the US every year).


If you don't seek medical attention then the mortality risk is probably very high 90%. People simply don't survive untreated massive internal bleeding.

Where did I ever say the person would never seek treatment, the woman that delivered the tubal baby at King’s College received plenty of treatment and both are alive and well today.


So if treated the odds of maternal survival are very good.

The odds of maternal survival are still very good even if the tube is allowed to rupture.


The fetus is not going to survive this regardless.

I’d love to see you tell the boy who did survive such a situation that he had no chance of living. He’s in the 7th grade now, and you can tell him that you thought we should have killed him because his mother (who is alive today) had no chance of living unless we did so. That’d be an interesting conversation. You’re standing on the wrong side of the moral aisle on this one and I am encouraging you to switch sides.


How can people be this dense?

I see, when you’re losing the debate just call the other side stupid, it never fails. The facts and morality are on my side on this issue, you have no leg to stand on.


Is Statler seriously arguing medicine with an actual MD...?

Sure, why not? You tried arguing science with someone who actually had a degree in science. The facts and the moral arguments are on my side on this issue regardless of whether he’s an MD or not.


Not only that but Statler would let his wife die - God's will. My goodness.

Not at all, I’d choose the situation that gave both my wife and child the best chance to live, as would my wife. You’d kill your baby so your wife would have a slightly better chance of surviving a situation she’d have a greater than 99.99 percent chance of surviving anyways. You’re the barbarian in this situation, not me. Truth be told, I used to think like you, but then I debated someone who thought like I do now and I realized my previous position was not defensible because it pretended to know the outcome of future events that are unknowable.

EvilDylan
10-25-2012, 03:37 PM
Waldorf is purposely being obtuse. It's fairly obvious.

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 03:43 PM
Waldorf is purposely being obtuse. It's fairly obvious.

When you're losing the debate call the other side stupid! It's obvious you're losing this debate.

EvilDylan
10-25-2012, 03:44 PM
When you're losing the debate call the other side stupid! It's obvious you're losing this debate.

Brush up on your definitions. Nowhere in my post did I call you stupid.

Here's an easier word for you: Ignorant.

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 03:48 PM
Brush up on your definitions. Nowhere in my post did I call you stupid.

Here's an easier word for you: Ignorant.

You can’t be serious…

Obtuse- not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.

“I didn’t call you stupid, I just said you had a slow intellect!”

EvilDylan
10-25-2012, 03:49 PM
Purposely being obtuse = willful ignorance.

Do I really need to explain this out to you?

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 04:03 PM
Purposely being obtuse = willful ignorance.

Do I really need to explain this out to you?

No it’s a cute way of insinuating I am stupid because if I say I am not being willfully ignorant you’ll claim that I must just be plain ignorant then. It's still an ad hominem no matter which way you slice it, anytime you have to resort to such irrationality it's obvious you’re losing. Call me dense or obtuse, attack me rather than my argument all you want, I don't care. I have defended my position without having to stoop to that level.

EvilDylan
10-25-2012, 04:08 PM
I'm going to probably insult you now.

You don't have very good reading comprehension skills do you?

If anything my comment could be taken as a compliment. As in you are purposely being obtuse about this subject, which implies that you are capable of more. You see it as an insult, or an attack because that's what you want to see. I think you are being willfully ignorant of the context in this thread just to make a point and stand your ground no matter how many facts are presented to refute your claims.

Stubborn? Is that a more appropriate word for you?

Locke
10-25-2012, 04:44 PM
I'm going to probably insult you now.

You don't have very good reading comprehension skills do you?

If anything my comment could be taken as a compliment. As in you are purposely being obtuse about this subject, which implies that you are capable of more. You see it as an insult, or an attack because that's what you want to see. I think you are being willfully ignorant of the context in this thread just to make a point and stand your ground no matter how many facts are presented to refute your claims.

Stubborn? Is that a more appropriate word for you?

You're wasting your time. This guy is telling a legitimate doctor he knows less about medicine than he does. He is incapable of rational discourse. On top of that, he is hands down the biggest pathological liar I've ever come across in my life...

EvilDylan
10-25-2012, 04:47 PM
You're wasting your time. This guy is telling a legitimate doctor he knows less about medicine than he does. He is incapable of rational discourse. On top of that, he is hands down the biggest pathological liar I've ever come across in my life...

Those are the most fun!

Statler Waldorf
10-25-2012, 05:05 PM
I think you are being willfully ignorant of the context in this thread just to make a point and stand your ground no matter how many facts are presented to refute your claims.

Nope, you did not mean it as a compliment, it was a subtle insult intended to play to the crowd. Rather than actually addressing my points you’d rather claim that my position is somehow ignorant (whether you believe I am doing it on purpose is irrelevant), the fact you are insinuating that my position is ignorant is what is insulting. What facts are you referring to? The facts are totally on my side…

FACT: Women rarely die from ruptured fallopian tubes (25-50 each year out of 100,000+ cases).
FACT: Babies do not always die after developing in the fallopian tube and rupturing it (documented case by the BBC at King’s College)
FACT: You don’t have knowledge of future events, I do not have knowledge of future events.

Given these facts the only rational position is to allow the pregnancy to take its course, if the baby dies naturally we did all that we could, if the tube ruptures killing the baby we still have a greater than 99.95 percent chance of saving the mother, if the tube ruptures and the baby and mother both survive then awesome. If they both die, we still took the best route to allow them both to live given the situation. I think any parent that knew the actual facts would take my position, “You’re baby is probably going to die, but the only chance it has to live is if you take this action, granted there is less than a 1 in 2000 chance that you may die from taking this action but it’s the only chance we have of saving your baby.” Every parent would jump at the chance of saving their child!


You're wasting your time. This guy is telling a legitimate doctor he knows less about medicine than he does. He is incapable of rational discourse. On top of that, he is hands down the biggest pathological liar I've ever come across in my life...

You are so small time, so just because an MD says no baby has ever survived a fallopian tube pregnancy all of the sudden means that Ronan in the UK didn’t actually survive that pregnancy? It’s a conspiracy by the BBC to prove my point? The doctor was trying to argue a position that was verifiably false. I have never lied about anything on here; you’re still just emotionally scarred because I embarrassed you in front of everyone because you were claiming to be a PhD candidate but you didn’t know what the two biggest peer-reviewed journals in the world, NATURE and SCIENCE looked like. Not only that but you were trying to sell some story about how only universities have access to such journals, which was another verifiably false statement I also embarrassed you over. If I hurt your feelings I am sorry, but I just couldn’t let you get away with such a ridiculous song and dance. Get educated, get informed.

trojanma
10-27-2012, 12:49 AM
FACT: Women rarely die from ruptured fallopian tubes (25-50 each year out of 100,000+ cases).
FACT: Babies do not always die after developing in the fallopian tube and rupturing it (documented case by the BBC at King’s College)
FACT: You don’t have knowledge of future events, I do not have knowledge of future events.



Statler your opinion on the matter is the perfect example of the danger of anecdotal evidence.

Fact #1
Obviously women rarely die from ectopic pregnancies, we have the full diagnostic force of modern medicine designed to protect the mother from an unnecessary death.
The situations where women die are the ones when it is not caught in time and they are allowed to have complications. I don't even see how this is meant to be an argument supporting your point. It is actually supporting my point that our methods have proven very effective in stopping unnecessary mortality.

Fact #2
First off I never said that it never happens precisely for this reason.
But you searched and searched and you found 1 case in the UK in 1992
100k ectopic pregnancies per year in the US alone. Modern medical records have been kept for at least 40 years on the subject. So out of the millions of ectopic pregnancies that have been recorded you found one case. Not a series, not a cohort, ONE.

So you would stake the life of a woman you love on one case?
Yes mortality is low because we treat the patient by terminating the fetus either with medicine(Methotrexate or Surgery or spontaneous auto-abortion).

This like all of medicine comes down to odds. At times the decision can be very difficult. This is not one of those cases.

.00000001% miracle vs. a real and tangible chance of death if you willfully refuse treatment. (note that your statistics of 25-50 out of a 100k deaths is not applicable in your situation because those people have presumably not refused treatment)

The only place where you can even come close to a realistic death rate for ectopic pregnancy for people refusing to treat it is the third world because those folks don't have the benefit of ultrasounds and what not.
Speaking to what I am trying to say
http://apps.who.int/rhl/gynaecology/lmcom2/en/index.html
Ectopic pregnancy is a leading cause of pregnancy-related death in early pregnancy (3, 4). Fortunately, after the advent of transvaginal ultrasonography and beta subunit of hCG (beta-hCG) tests, the incidence rates of rupture of fallopian tubes and case-fatality rates declined (4). In developing countries, a majority of hospital-based studies have reported ectopic pregnancy case-fatality rates of around 1%–3%, 10 times higher than those reported in developed countries (5). Late diagnosis, leading in almost all cases to major complications and emergency surgical intervention, is the key factor accounting for such high fatality rates in women suffering from ectopic pregnancy in developing countries. However, transvaginal ultrasonography and beta-hCG tests are rarely available in public health institutions in developing countries. Hence, ectopic pregnancy continues to be a life-threatening and sometimes fatal condition, whose treatment frequently requires an emergency intervention often including salpingectomy.

No one I mean no one of sound mind would take those odds that you are proposing.

TheWalrus
10-27-2012, 12:59 AM
Good post, trojanma. I had forgotten about this thread so thank you for posting that. I think our good buddy Statler has forgotten the notion of the exception that proves the rule.