The Ectopic Pregnancy Dilemma and Abortion Abolition Legislation
© Dr. Daryl Rodriguez, 2023
(This article was last updated on November 13, 2023)
Introduction and Definitions
There has been a long-standing moral dilemma when it comes to the issue of ectopic pregnancy (i.e., when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus). This is certainly evident in discussions and debate within the “pro-life movement” and more recent “abolition of abortion movement.” One of the main reasons why it has been considered a difficult and controversial scenario is due to the potential danger to both the ectopic preborn child and mother, both of whom are created in the image of God. Specifically, this discussion will center around three main questions: 1) Is it ever morally and biblically justifiable to actively terminate a preborn child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy with no true attempt to save it’s life? 2) Is it morally and biblically acceptable to include some type of ectopic exception language in bills of abortion abolition? 3) Should bills of abolition that contain ectopic exception language be supported? Though medical and legal propositions will be considered, as Christians, we must always filter our response through the principles of God’s Word. As a result, this I will argue that in light of the principles in divine revelation, ectopic babies are indeed human beings created in the image of Almighty God, and therefore, it is never morally or biblically justifiable to answer affirmative to any of the aforementioned three questions.To begin, I will define a few terms:
Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
Conception: The union of the sperm and the ovum. It is synonymous with fertilization.[1] I would add that though some within and without the medical community have defined pregnancy at implantation or some other point, I am defining pregnancy at the moment of conception. In fact, the embryo starts developing at conception. This is when we have a unique human being created in the image of Almighty God. Indeed, David, in Psalm 51:5, states “…in sin, my mother conceived me” (ESV).
Ectopic pregnancy: Coming from the Greek meaning “out of place” (ek– “out” and topos– “place”) an ectopic pregnancy happens when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube.[2]
Exception: That which is excepted, excluded, or separated from others in a general description; the person or thing specified as distinct or not included. Almost every general rule has its exceptions.[3]
Healthcare: Efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively.[4]
Miscarriage: An early, unintentional end to a pregnancy when the baby is born too early and dies because it has not developed enough.[5]
Murder: Based on Scripture, a proper definition would be the willful unjustified killing of an innocent human being. It must be noted that under a “legal” definition of murder (among the varying states of the U.S.), “legal” abortion would not fit the requirements. In other words, under the law of man instituted by civil government, abortion is not unlawful and would not be defined as murder. However, it should be noted that the death of an unborn child can be legally counted as murder if there is premeditation, malice involved and done without legal authority (see the Unborn Victims Child Act of 2004- 18 U.S. Code § 1841 – Protection of unborn children). Ultimately, God has defined what murder is, and the killing of the unborn child at any stage would qualify.[6]
Pregnancy: Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body.[7] Biblically speaking, this occurs at the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). “The state of a female who has conceived, or is with child.”[8]
Preterm Birth: Preterm birth is the birth of a baby after 20 weeks and before 37 weeks.[9]
Triage: The process of sorting people based on their needs for immediate medical treatment as compared to their chances of benefiting from such care.[10]
Viable: The stage of fetal development where a fetus is able to live outside of the womb. At present this is usually determined to be at least 20 weeks and upwards of 24 weeks of pregnancy.[11]
Question #1: Is it ever morally and biblically justifiable to actively terminate a preborn child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, with no true attempt to save it’s life?
Answer: No
First, important to this discussion is that there must be a clear distinction between “abortion” and “miscarriage.” As made clear in the definitions of this paper, a spontaneous miscarriage is not immoral or unbiblical for the simple reason that there is no intent for harm by mother or doctor. I would agree with the medical community’s estimation that most ectopic pregnancies are likely not diagnosed, with the mother not even being aware of her pregnancy. In this situation, the baby would likely die and be expelled from the mother before it grew large enough to be a danger to the mother. Of course, it is not immoral or unbiblical to remove a dead ectopic baby. This is not an abortion and there is no real controversy here among the abolitionist/pro-life community. In addition, there are many cases where ectopic pregnancies are misdiagnosed, meaning that there is no ectopic pregnancy. Some sources state that despite medical advances in imaging, there are examples of pregnancies that are diagnosed as ectopic and are later revealed to be normal intrauterine pregnancies.[12] These can have disastrous results.
For example, Dr. Yaron Finkelstein, an emergency physician at Sick Kids Hospital and associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues, described the effects of methotrexate on eight misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancies in a study published in the January 2011 issue of American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.[13] In that study, they note that two pregnancies resulted in severely malformed newborns with methotrexate embryopathy; three women miscarried shortly after exposure, and in three the erroneous diagnosis led the physicians to advise and perform surgical termination. For more examples of ectopic pregnancies where mother and baby have survived, as well as a thorough study of the entire issue of ectopic pregnancies, and its ethical/biblical implications, see Bill Fortenberry’s article “Ectopic Personhood.”[14]
One foundational issue/debate in relation to this question is whether or not ectopic pregnancies are truly life-threatening medical conditions for the baby and/or mother. The question can be stated the following way: “If left “untreated,”[15] do all ectopic pregnancies result in the mother’s and/or baby’s death?” I have concluded that the answer is “no.” The following are a few important points to mention:
- It is undeniable that there are numerous documented cases where the baby and/or mother have died as a result of an “untreated” ectopic pregnancy.
- However, though extremely rare, there are known documented cases where both mother and child have survived ectopic pregnancies (including tubal pregnancies). For example, a mother was pregnant with triplets (two babies were in the womb and one had implanted in the right fallopian tube). Though a rupture occurred, the ectopic baby re-planted on the exterior walls of the uterus and the bladder. The baby was successfully delivered via cesarean section at 29 weeks and 3 days into pregnancy.[16] There are several other documented cases.[17]
- I would argue that we (i.e., the medical community and society in general) truly don’t have enough documented data to draw a strong conclusion on how many babies and/or mothers would survive an ectopic pregnancy. Why is this? Because, it seems fairly evident that most diagnosed ectopic pregnancies are terminated by abortion before there is enough time to see the results if the baby were permitted to grow. Most doctors and parents, for the reason of avoiding so-called certain death of mother and child just don’t allow the ectopic pregnancy to continue. So, the question remains, “Do we really know how many babies and mothers would survive if we practice the ‘watch and wait’ approach?” I would argue we do not.
- It should be noted that if it could be proven that every ectopic pregnancy would result in the death of mother and/or child, the answer would be a much more difficult dilemma for some. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that even if this were the case, it would still not be ethically permissible to sacrifice one person for the sake of another. Notwithstanding, this is a moot point, since there truly is no way of knowing what would happen in every ectopic circumstance.
By definition, abortion is murder, which is obviously immoral (see my definition section). As such, this paper will not delve into the debate over whether or not abortion is murder under some man-made “legal definition.” I come from the premise that, under natural and biblical law, abortion is indeed murder, that is, the intentional and premeditated killing of an innocent human being created in the image of God. To intentionally terminate a living fertilized egg that is ectopic is by definition, an abortion. A living baby that is intentionally killed is murder. Here are the three main procedures to terminate a baby that is ectopic (such as, when implanted in the fallopian tube):[18]
Methotrexate: An injection of a drug in the mother that stops the cellular growth of the preborn child.
Salpingostomy: Removal of the embryonic child through an incision in the tube.
Salpingectomy: Removal of a portion (or all) of the tube that contains the embryonic child.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, I don’t believe there is any ethical or biblical justification for an abortion, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy (including tubal pregnancies). In this article, I will not go into all of the other supposed “life and health of the mother necessities.” In addition, many argue that the termination of an ectopic child through one of the before-mentioned procedures is simply medical triage. However, I would disagree. In triage, the purpose is to sort through the various patients and administer treatment according to necessity (even if some patients may suffer and die, in order to treat others that have a better chance to live). However, the error in this line of reasoning that is often made is not recognizing that triage does not include the purposeful and direct termination of one human being in order to potentially save the life of another human being. It is never justified to murder one human being in order to potentially save the life of another human being. The ends do not justify the means. Indeed, Romans 3:8 reminds us, “And why not say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.” (NKJV)
I believe the ethical answer is to practice the “watch and wait” approach. Sarah Cleveland, an abortion abolitionist, Registered Diagnostic Medical Sonographer, and OB/GYN, has written an excellent article that explains this approach. In this article she says that this approach (which is extremely rare) would have the mother be carefully monitored either at home or at the hospital if necessary. She notes, “Here, serial ultrasounds and blood work should be done to monitor hCG levels as well as monitoring the mother’s vitals. Once the baby dies, surgery to remove the tube is then morally acceptable.”[19] Of course, it must be emphasized that the baby must be definitively determined to be dead before such removal.
It is, also, vitally important to understand that in the case of a live ectopic pregnancy, every doctor has an ethical duty to treat both patients as equal human beings and do everything in his or her power to treat and save both mother and preborn child. The key is intent. A doctor must have the actual clear intent to save both patients. By way of example, one legitimate and ethical approach to attempt to save both mother and child, is to attempt uterine transplantation. This would be an example of actually trying to save the child, not destroy it (see Fortenberry’s article for a detailed presentation and discussion on transplantation). This would not be considered murder.
Nevertheless, some would argue that when a doctor terminates a live ectopic (through methods such as methotrexate, salpingostomy, or salpingectomy) in order to potentially save the life of the mother, their intention is not to kill the child. I would argue against this. If the doctor has no real intent to try to save that child by attempted implantation, or some other legitimate life-saving procedure (even if it is a low-percentage chance of survival), then it is unjustified, immoral, and intentional killing (i.e., murder). For example, if the mother is injected with methotrexate in order to kill the baby (by stopping the cellular growth of the child), there is no intent to save the baby. The death of the child is clearly inevitable and intended. The same is true when a living ectopic baby that is of non-viable age is removed from the tube (or some other place other than the uterus) and is discarded by placing it in the trash or some other non-sustaining receptacle. This is, also, intentional killing. However, it must be noted that if a living ectopic baby is of viable age and the doctor simply removes the baby (with procedures such as salpingostomy or salpingectomy), it would be considered preterm delivery. In this case, there is actual intent to save the child even though chances for survival are minimized. In all these examples (except as noted) of so-called “triage” and “treatment” (which they are not), the clear intent is to kill and not attempt to save. To say otherwise is disingenuous and plainly false.
Does this concept align with the moral principles in God’s Word? I would argue that it does. As Christians, our duty and moral obligation is to align with the principles in God’s Word, without compromise. To begin, God would never desire us to intentionally kill an innocent person in order to potentially save the life of another. This is murder and as stated previously, we should never do evil that good may come (Romans 3:8). By way of contrast, it is not an immoral action when one’s intent is to actually attempt to save the life of one person, even if the chance of survival is minimal. We will compare these two very different scenarios with the following sets of illustrations. However, before we proceed, we must remember that there are no perfect illustrations, and pregnancy is a truly unique scenario, of which there is no exact parallel. With that in mind, please consider the following illustrations which I believe demonstrate the same moral principles.
First, let us examine a few hypothetical extra-biblical thought experiments. Consider a situation where a mother, her baby, and her two other young children were hiding in the wilderness from an assailant who is hot on their trail and was attempting to murder them all. Unfortunately, the newborn babe begins to cry very loudly and incessantly and, thereby begins to reveal their location. The mother then reasons, “If I kill my baby by suffocating him, I would likely save the rest of my family. After all, isn’t it better to save as many lives as we can, than have us all die?” Would that reasoning be justified? Is this a morally right action by God? I believe not. Now consider the same situation, but in this case the mother reasons, “Perhaps I can send my eight year old out to escape in the deep woods to possibly find some kind of help.” In this situation, even though the chance of the older child finding help or even escaping the killer would be minimal, this action would be morally justified by God’s standard. What is the difference? The intent of the mother is not to kill the older child, and though minimal, there is actually a small chance that the child (and even perhaps the other family members) could survive. In the first scenario, it is unjustified since there is no life-saving attempt, but the crying infant is intentionally sacrificed (murdered) for the possibility of saving the lives of the rest of the family.
Now let us consider a couple of direct biblical examples of the principles involved. First, let us look at an unjustified example; the story of the cannibalism in 2 Kings 6. In this passage there is a severe famine in the land and the Israelites are desperate to survive. In this instance, there are two women who make an unholy agreement to take turns eating their own children in order to live! Instead of obeying God’s principles, they compromised out of fear and selfishness and resorted to child sacrifice. Undoubtedly, they must have reasoned it was better that at least they would survive, rather than all of them die. In contrast, ponder the story of baby Moses. After Pharaoh had decreed to throw every newborn Hebrew boy into the Nile River, it had come to a time when Moses’ parents felt that death was imminent for their baby and could no longer hide him from authorities. Though not mentioned, perhaps they even reasoned that they themselves would be in danger if Pharaoh had knowledge of the baby’s whereabouts. Their solution was to trust God and instead of allowing the newborn to likely be discovered, they sent him down the river in a papyrus basket, in hopes that he would be found and saved by Pharaoh’s daughter. In this scenario, no one was directly sacrificed for the potential saving of another. While it may be true that the chances of baby Moses to survive were dramatically diminished, Moses’ parents’ intent was to attempt to save the child’s life. It seems evident in the fact that Moses’ sister, Miriam, had a watchful eye on the whole situation. The Bible says, “And his sister stood afar off, to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4, NKJV). In addition to this, she likely knew that Pharaoh’s daughter came down to bathe in that same location as part of her ritual routine.[20] The story continues by stating that Miriam then approaches Pharaoh’s daughter and asks her if she would like for her to fetch a Hebrew woman (Miriam’s mother) to nurse the baby for her, to which she replies, “Yes, please do!” Of course, Miriam promptly takes baby Moses back to her mother and in addition, she is actually paid by Pharaoh’s daughter!
As we can see from these illustrations, it is clear that it is never morally or biblically justified to kill one innocent life in order to potentially save the life of another. Such a view ends up aligning with the non-biblical and non-absolute ethical system of what is called “generalism” or “utilitarianism.” This is the view that right and wrong is relative, and determined by what is best for the majority.[21] The Word of God reminds us, “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12), and “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” (Romans 6:1-2a, NKJV). Indeed, the ends do not justify the means. We can also draw the conclusion that there is a world of difference between having the intent to directly kill an innocent human being (which is murder) and the principle of having the intent to attempt to save an innocent life, even if their chances of survival is exceptionally diminished (as in the story of baby Moses).
On a different note, some would like to justify this action by claiming that it falls under the principle of double effect.[22] This principle rests on the following basic principles: 1) that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent, 2) that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended, 3) that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect, and 4) that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.[23] However, I would argue that the action would not qualify under this principle because it fails on the very first premise. It is undeniable, that removing a live ectopic baby of non-viable age with no actual attempt to save it’s life is in fact, abortion and murder. This act is not good, but evil.
Finally, some would argue that killing a live ectopic with no intent to save the baby is justified as it should be considered self-defense. However, there are several problems with this logic. To begin, the preborn baby has no volitional capabilities nor awareness and, therefore, is not culpable for his or her actions. After all, the preborn has not in any way put himself or herself in the mother’s body. The ectopic baby is doing nothing wrong, but rather is just living in the place in which he or she has been created to exist. This idea that we can threaten another person’s life by our very existence has also been used by population control advocates. Yet, that does not justify the killing of born people for the purpose of “population control.” In addition, as Bill Fortenberry notes, to prove that self-defense is justified, two things must be proven:[24] The first is that the death of the innocent person is imminent and not just a possibility. As this article and Fortenberry’s article demonstrate, the data concludes that the death of the mother in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is in fact, not imminent, but only a possibility. The second aspect that must be proven is that it is actually the child that is threatening the life of the mother, and not the mother that is threatening the life of the child. Considering these two options, it is much more likely that it is the preborn child that is the victim of the mother, rather than the opposite. Indeed, it is the child that is completely at the mercy of the mother, and is ectopic to no fault of his or her own.
Question #2: Is it morally and biblically acceptable to include some type of ectopic exception language in bills of abortion abolition?
Answer: No
As an example of legislation with this exception (there are many others, both past and present), I will examine a bill of abolition from the state of Texas from the 2021 legislative session- HB23, The Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act.[25]
- Abortion for any living ectopic is not morally or biblically justified. It is still murder. This kind of legislation would leave room for this. HB23 under section 9.22 (b), it states, “conduct is justified if the conduct charged is a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider and intended to remove an ectopic pregnancy that seriously threatens the life of the mother when a reasonable alternative to save the lives of both the mother and the unborn child is unavailable.” As written, there is no distinction as to what type of ectopic (either dead or alive) is intended to apply. This legislation leaves room for the killing of an innocent live baby of unviable age (through procedures such as salpingectomy, salpingostomy, methotrexate), which is murder/homicide.
- There should not be an exception in legislation that is prohibiting homicide. It is not moral or necessary. The language in section 9.22 (b) clearly is an exception to this legislation to abortion abolition/equal protection. It is neither moral or necessary. A fundamental distinction in bills of abolition and the unjustified incremental and regulatory bills of the pro-life establishment has been that a true bill of abolition is without exceptions, while the latter feature the exceptions.
- Any doctor that is legitimately attempting to save both mother and child (such as through uterine transplantation), even if the baby were to die, would not be in violation of legislation prohibiting all abortions. The doctor would be doing good, and not evil.
- Any doctor that simply removes a live ectopic baby earlier than full-term but that is of viable age (able to live outside of the womb) would be considered preterm delivery and even if it results in the unintended baby’s death, would not be in violation of legislation prohibiting all abortions. The doctor would be doing good, and not evil.
- Any doctor that removes an ectopic baby that has died naturally will not be in violation of a legislation prohibiting all abortions. Again, he would be doing good, not evil.
- The conclusion is that there is no justified reason to leave this type of exception in a bill of abolition of abortion. To leave an exception for abortion is NOT EQUAL PROTECTION.
Question #3: Should bills of abolition that contain ectopic exception language be supported?
Answer: No
Since it is unjustified and unnecessary to have an exception to homicide written into a bill to abolish abortion, it is unjustified to support any and such legislation. In essence, with the exception included, it has essentially become another pro-life regulatory bill. As a proposed solution, I would recommend the non-inclusion of any such ectopic exception language in any bill of total and immediate abolition. The reason it is not necessary is that if a physician is not performing an abortion, and is truly attempting to save the life of both baby and mother, they will not be subject to prosecution. If any specific language is to be included to make it clear that there are to be NO exceptions, I would recommend something to the effect of “Any physician doing their upmost to attempt to save the lives of both mother and child, and document that they have done so, even if the result is the unintended death of either patient, will not be in violation of such enacted law nor subject to prosecution.”[26]
Conclusion and Personal Note
The issue of ectopic pregnancy is perhaps the most difficult moral considerations in the realm of abortion. This is primarily due to the potential life-threatening danger to both mother and preborn child. Though there are many within the pro-life and abolition movement that would argue otherwise, It is my conclusion that in light of principles in divine revelation, ectopic babies are indeed human beings created in the image of Almighty God, and therefore, it is never morally or biblically acceptable to actively terminate a preborn child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy with no true attempt to save it’s life. As a result, it is never justified to include any ectopic exception language in any bill of abolition, nor to support such a bill, resolution, or statement with it’s inclusion. Such an exception is not equal protection, abolition, constitutional, and most importantly, biblical.
With this being said, how should I treat those who disagree? Whether my critics are Christian or non-Christians, I must still speak the truth in love. This issue, though not salvific in nature, is of primary importance and one that cannot be compromised nor left in silence. It is an issue of life and death. The Bible clearly states that the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination to Almighty God (Proverbs 6:17). This includes ectopics. When it comes to my Christian brothers and sisters who hold to the view contrary to the one presented here, I would say that they are mistaken. Indeed, they may not recognize and see as murder, what I see as murder. This is also true of many of the regulatory and incremental positions that have been prominent over the decades within the “pro-life establishment.” I would contend that the mishandling of the ectopic issue is an unjust compromise as with many other “exceptions” to abortion. Nevertheless, to some extent, I have many Christian friends (including abortion abolitionists) who hold to an erroneous view of ectopics. I still consider them my brothers and sisters and I would not disfellowship from them. They may hold to an incorrect application of God’s Word, but I have no doubt that they would still agree that abortion is evil and murder in God’s eyes. They just don’t agree that all instances of ectopic intervention would fall in that category. Yet, since this is a grave error, I must continue to strive and educate on this most important truth.
Finally, I must take some time to address those who may have wrongly and unjustly ended the lives of their children that were in ectopic scenarios. Of course this is a sad and difficult circumstance. Was this a mistake? Yes, I believe it was, and I would undoubtedly caution and advise against this same action for future similar circumstances. I would say the same to any post-abortive mother. God is a gracious and forgiving God! The Bible says His mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:22) and where sin abounded, grace abounded even more (Romans 5:20)! Indeed, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). May we all rest in these precious truths and continue to seek the wisdom of God until He calls us to eternity.
If you are in agreement with this article and would like to sign our RESOLUTION FOR EQUAL PROTECTION FOR ECTOPICS you can do so on our sub-page on this site or just go click on the above hyperlinked heading.
[1] https://www.medicinenet.com/conception/definition.htm. (Accessed August 23, 2021.)
[2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9687-ectopic-pregnancy. (Accessed August 18, 2021.)
[3] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/exception. (Accessed August 24, 2021.)
[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/health%20care. (Accessed August 24, 2021
[5] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/miscarriage. (Accessed September 30th, 2021.
[6] Taken from my article, “Does having an abortion take an innocent human life?” https://truelife.org/answers/is-abortion-murder. (Accessed August 23, 2021). See this article for a more comprehensive discussion. It must also be noted, that though I use the term “legal,” as it is commonly used and applied to abortion in the U.S., I actually don’t believe it is legal, since abortion (murder) ultimately violates the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
[7] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pregnant. (Accessed August 23, 2021.)
[8] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Pregnancy. (Accessed August 23, 2021.)
[9] This definition is according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/preterm-labor-and birth#:~:text=Preterm%20birth%20is%20the%20birth,childhood%20or%20even%20in%20adulthood. (Accessed October 9, 2023
[10] https://www.medicinenet.com/triage/definition.htm. (Accessed August 22, 2021.)
[11] I am using the definition of “viability” only in the sense as noted above. I am not using the term to refer to whether or not a pregnancy is expected to continue developing normally before birth (regardless if the baby is in the uterus or ectopic). In others words, I am not arguing that the ectopic baby is “unviable” just because it is ectopic. Instead, I am using the term viable to only refer to the preborn baby’s stage of development and whether or not it is able to survive outside of the uterus. For more of this discussion, see here: https://www.whattoexpect.com/first-year/preemies/fetal-viability. (Accessed October 9, 2023).
[12] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/baby-born-deformed-misdiagnosed-ectopic-pregnancy/story?id=15421441. (Accessed August 22, 2021.)
[13] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21907957/. (Accessed February 2, 2022)
[14] http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/ectopic-personhood.html. (Accessed August 22, 2021)
[15] The word “untreated” is in parenthesis here because this paper argues that some use that term to apply to the intentional removal of a live ectopic baby with no true attempt to save the baby’s life. This is not “treatment,” but murder.
[16] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/miraculous-birth-of-the-triplet-who-grew-outside-the-womb-1117714.html. (Accessed August 19, 2021)
[17] This is an example of a baby that was implanted in the mother’s ovary. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7427907.stm. (Accessed August 19, 2021)
[18] See Abortion: From Debate To Dialogue, The Interactive Guide (v. 3.0). Edited by Stephen Wagner. Justice For All Inc., 2015, pg. 108. Note: Sometimes, a procedure is performed with a combination of methotrexate, plus one of the other two methods.
[19] https://endabortionnow.com/answering-the-ectopic-pregnancy-argument/. (Accessed August 22, 2021). In this article, Cleveland also notes that some physicians prescribe methotrexate to attack and kill some of the living cells (such as the chorionic villi and amnion) of the baby even though, as she states, “the baby is not living.” Once again, it should be emphasized that doctors have the moral duty to wait until it can be definitively determined that the baby is dead before methotrexate is administered and the baby is removed. Personally, I would highly caution and advise against such a dangerous procedure. hCG stands for human chorionic gonadotropin, hormone that produces progesterone for pregnancy.
[20] The NLT Study Bible notes that the Nile was understood by the Egyptians to be a goddess who had life-giving and healing properties. By coming down to the water, Pharaoh’s daughter was not merely washing, but completing her morning devotions. Hence, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn, that this was a regular ritual that Moses’ family was aware of, and therefore knew that there was a fair possibility that baby Moses could be found if he floated down to that location. See John N. Oswalt, Notes on Exodus, NLT Study Bible (Sean A. Harrison, et al., eds., Tyndale Publishers, 2017), 127.
[21] For a full discussion on this ethical view, as well as the other major ethical views, see Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).
[22] This principle seems to be a foundational basis for other similar positions and declarations such as the Dublin Declaration and AAPLOG Statement. The Dublin Declaration, which was a statement crafted by a symposium of over 150 medical professionals, reads “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn in the termination of pregnancy – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatments results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to a pregnant woman.” See https://www.dublindeclaration.com/. Please note that this author does not agree with this declaration. As stated previously I would contend that the intentional killing of a non-viable live ectopic baby, with no intent to attempt to save, is an abortion, and does not qualify as “medical treatment.” I would also disagree with the practice of an “early delivery” of a living non-viable (under 22 weeks gestation) ectopic (or non-ectopic) baby in order to possibly save the life of the mother. The AAPLOG (American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists) article entitled “AAPLOG Statement: Clarification of Abortion Restrictions” supports this practice and provides further discussion on the issue. See https://aaplog.org/aaplog-statement-clarification-of-abortion-restrictions/.
[23] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/. (Accessed March 13th, 2023). Note: Though the introduction of the concept has been credited to Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art 7), there are different variations of the conditions for the basic principle of double effect. The four conditions mentioned here were proposed by Joseph Mangan and build up the four conditions listed in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. See Connell, F.J., 1967. “Double Effect, Principle of,” New Catholic Encyclopedia (Volume 4), New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 1020–2, p. 1021.
[24] Information gathered from personal conversation with Bill Fortenberry.
[25] See the full document here: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/873/billtext/html/HB00023I.htm. (Accessed September 30, 2021). Note: This author appreciates much of the work of the organization Abolish Abortion Texas (AATX). AATX was instrumental in crafting this piece of legislation, and this author has supported the previous two bills of abolition in Texas championed by this organization. There are other examples of legislation with this ectopic exception included (whether not the actual word, “ectopic” is mentioned). For other more recent examples see Arkansas’ HB1174 (https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FHB1174.pdf), Texas’ HB2709 (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02709I.htm), and South Carolina’s H3549 (https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/3549.htm?fbclid=IwAR151iYZrsVRjZYkbzjs7wVZbyBUANPZUGqM55uSies0sIuw0SdXskjVaOo).
[26] It should also be noted that this author believes that besides in legislation, any such ectopic exception language included in other documents, resolutions, declarations, etc., are also unjustified, immoral and must be rejected. Unfortunately, there are too many examples to list them all here.