Waldorf is purposely being obtuse. It's fairly obvious.
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.
Perseverance of the Saints
Waldorf is purposely being obtuse. It's fairly obvious.
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.
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?