Posts Tagged ‘A Mother’s Life’

Ethics Daily has posted an article regarding Doug Phillips’ outrageous stance on terminating ectopic pregnancies to save the mother’s life.

Check it out here.


Read Full Post »

A Mommy Post

Okay all you moms out there… I HOPE you can relate to this little snippet of my afternoon.

We’ve been nursing a big sore on the back of my son’s leg. It got infected and the infection spread to other parts of his leg. THEN his eczema flared up because he’s been scratching the itchy sores. Just got the word today that the sore has a “heavy growth” of staph aureos. Yuck.

So, he and my daughter were playing outside in the back while I got dinner ready for my husband before he left for work. I come outside to check on them and my son is just standing there, holding on to his shorts. I know what’s happened. He’s had a poopy accident in his pants. Okay, NOT GOOD! Not to get too gross, but its all over the place and I STILL need to get out in the backyard and finish cleaning up. This happened a few minutes ago, BTW and you’ll know why I haven’t got out there to finish at the end of my story.

Okay, so we decide the best way to clean Alex off is to hose him down and then finish off in the shower with soap and water. No problem. Sophia desperately wanted to help, but we decided to keep her out of this one. I took Alex in the bath and cleaned him off with soap and water. I’m trying to work quickly because I have to see my husband off to work. I don’t want any of the mess to get in my son’s sore. I’m all hot and sweaty and just a little cranky (just a little though).

We’re all done and my son runs out of the bathroom, totally naked, screaming “I’m clean, Daddy! I’m clean!” Very cute, right? So, I pop out of the bathroom and my husband’s carpool is sitting on the couch where I expected my husband to be. Aaah! Usually they just switch cars and he doesn’t even comes in the house. If I know he’s coming inside, the house is picked up and no one is frantic. I just like to represent our home and my husband well and even though my husband says he doesn’t care, well, I care.

Alex is naked. Sophia is running around diaper-less because she took it off thinking she was going to take a bath with Alex. My husband is off getting a new diaper for Sophia. Daniel is sitting on the couch and I am trying to make conversation without talking about the ordeal I’ve just gone through cleaning up the biggest accident EVER. I’m frazzled and a little frustrated and trying to be hospitable even though they will be leaving in five minutes. Sophia wants dinner. Alex is sweet and obedient and runs to get a diaper right away when I ask him to. I impress the heck out of Daniel because I can diaper my children while they are standing up. We exchange finicky kid diaper stories.

Next up is getting DH’s lunch so he won’t have to eat out. Normally, its a sandwich. Not tonight. Its leftovers from dinner. I shove the guys out the door and things finally start to settle down. I just HAD to sit here and write it out before the frantic-ness of it left me.

And now, I’m out to the backyard to clean up the rest of the mess. Yuck!

Read Full Post »

Doug Phillips posted anew to his blog today with an article entitled “Is Innocent Human Life Ever Negotiable“. In it I found the following:

Dan forwarded to me this article written by him on the importance of maintaining a 100% pro-life, anti-abortion position in all cases including rape, incest, and ectopic pregnancies. This is the formal position of Vision Forum, the Roman Catholic Church, and numerous leaders and organizations within the pro-life community. We all stand for the proposition that self-conscious, intentional abortion is never justified, and that both parents and the medical community must respect and honor the personhood of both the mother and the child.

As the token Roman Catholic in the bunch, I feel that it’s my duty to make a few clarifications here. In the interest of fairness and so that the reader understands what bias I have in my writing I will say that as much as I love the Roman Catholic Church, I do not agree with them on all matters theological or ethical. That said, they do not hold the same position as VFM when it comes to the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

The Roman Catholic position is that the termination of pregnancy is never licit, unless it is to save the life of the mother. Further, the goal has to be saving the life of the mother, not the injury of the baby. For example, removing the fetus in the tube would be permissible under Catholic teaching because it doesn’t directly hurt the baby and the goal is to save the mother. Another example would be a hysterectomy to remove uterine cancer during pregnancy. The goal is to save the mother, not hurt the baby, thus it is morally licit. It’s called the Principle of Double Effect. VFM is currently teaching that women would be better served by waiting it out with an ectopic pregnancy, thus putting her at risk of death. That is not the same as the Catholic teaching.

When making the decision with my daughter, I chose to induce labor which would thus end the issues that were causing me danger, and nothing was done to my daughter. She was born still, but whole. In fact, my church brought me Communion while I was in labor, and a deacon came to bless her after her birth. My church was very supportive of my decision because my life was worth as much as my daughter’s, and she had conditions that made her incompatible with life.

What I find interesting is that Mr. Phillips is so quick to apply this 100% pro-life attitude toward ectopic pregnancy and pregnancy in general, but not as quick to apply it elsewhere. Why is Mr. Phillips not writing against the war in Iraq? Many innocent lives have been lost in our efforts there. Why aren’t we condemning our soldiers as murderers? Why isn’t he questioning his faith after reading that God commanded the deaths of children in the Old Testament? Is God different today than He was yesterday? Or are His standards so arbitrary that it’s okay to take some innocent life but not others? It seems he’s applied the Principle of Double Effect to war and to Scripture, but not to pregnancy.

I agree with Mr. Phillip’s statement that “Intent is everything. We must never intend to abort the child.” I disagree with his application of this in the event of tubal pregnancy and other pregnancies where a mother must save her life. Believe me, we don’t intend the deaths of our children, but only the preservation of our lives.

More importantly, Mr. Phillips, the leader of a “ministry” fails to recognize this amazing opportunity to minister to those in need. He has a chance to reach out to women in pain and show them the love of Christ. But he instead focuses on discussing the law in the sterile setting of his blog. Out in the real world, it’s far messier.

To any woman reading this blog today, please know that I believe in a God who loves you, right where you are. He does not condemn you for saving your own life. My God grieved the loss of my daughter with me, and He knows pain and suffering. My God does not offer judgment, but has taken our judgment upon Himself that we may be made clean. He knows that life is messy and hard. And He promises to walk with us on that path. If you are reading this after experiencing the pain of loss, you are not alone. You have sisters-in-loss here, and a God who understands what you’ve been through and wants to comfort you.

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,

to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,

and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the LORD
for the display of his splendor.

Isaiah 61:1-3

Read Full Post »

Who’s Life?

From Doug’s blog today:

“At Vision Forum, we are passionate about life.”

Except when it comes to the lives of pregnant women.

Read Full Post »

The Life in a Shoe blog author has written an article about why ending an ectopic pregnancy is wrong. See the previous link for the original article which I will be quoting and answering here.

As Christians, we are unabashedly, 100% pro-life. We believe that life begins at conception; that every human life is created in the image of God; and that abortion is wrong in every case. This is where we differ from many other “pro-lifers” who are willing to grant that abortion may be merited in certain cases.

I disagree. And I resent her presumption to speak for all Christians on this matter. Being 100% pro-life means giving the life of the mother at least as much importance as the life of the child. And risking the life of the mother as in ectopic pregnancy seems unwise and anti-life, in my opinion. When it comes to one life or the other, I believe it is morally licit to choose to save your own life, as painful as that is. And believe me, I’ve made that choice, and I know. She can call me a murderer until the cows come home, but that doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t make her right.

The standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy follows one of 3 courses: chemically induced abortion (usually by means of a drug called methotrexate); removal of the entire fallopian tube which contains the baby or a the affected portion of the tube; or removal of the baby and subsequent repair of the affected fallopian tube.

All 3 approaches directly result in the inevitable death of the child.

However, there is at least one more option: Wait. Be ready, but wait. Treat the mother if necessary but do not kill the child. No abortion.

The primary argument against the Watchful Waiting method of treatment is that it is dangerous to the mother. Alarmists will try to equate it to a death sentence – and for what? The child was doomed from the start, right?

No. The outcome is not so easily predicted as some would have you think.

I think this attitude is naive at best. The author is willing to risk the lives of many for the one in a million baby that might survive.

Yes, there is a high likelihood that the child will die. How high? Nobody really knows, because nobody seems to recommend this approach.

Doesn’t she think that perhaps there’s a reason for that? Doctors aren’t in the business of killing people. That’s not why they become doctors. And if they could figure out a way to save mother an baby, they’d be employing it. But overwhelmingly babies die, and if untreated the mother could too.

There was recently a documented case of anundiagnosed ectopic pregnancy that was delivered by c-section at full term. There are others as well: A baby born in 2000 was attached to the mother’s bowel, as was this one in 2005. This 1999 triplet developed in the fallopian tube, while his two sisters grew in the uterus. The triplet article states that there are 60-100 cases of babies growing outside the womb and surviving.

This information is accurate, but misleading. She can name 4 babies who survived as ectopic pregnancies in a 9 year period from around the world. But she fails to mention the 40 maternal deaths that occur each year in the United States alone. The United States, by the way, which is a developed nation with good healthcare. Statistics don’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not fair to mention those few babies who have survived, and ignore the many women who die right along with their babies.

Yes, these cases made headlines and amazed the whole world, but how many more cases would do so if we didn’t diagnose and automatically abort them? This site seems to indicate that the prognosis for the ectopic child is not entirely hopeless, at least in the case of abdominal pregnancy:

I’m certain a few more babies would make it over the years. But how many more mothers would die? Even with the statistics provided here, which is survival from around the world compared to mortality from just the US (worldwide mortality rates are much higher, especially in underdeveloped nations), there are 10 mothers and babies who die for every mother and baby who lives.

But what about the mother? Is it right to sacrifice her life with so little hope of gaining the life of the child? In the case of abdominal pregnancies that are allowed to continue, the article above goes on to state that:

Mortality and maternal morbidity are directly related to the removal of the placenta during childbirth. The remove of the placenta depends on the degree of invasion, the location of insertion, the involvement of the other organs and the surgical access to the placental blood supply. If it is possible, the complete placental extraction should be done. If not, the placenta should be left at the place, following by occlusion of the umbilical cord. The subsequent management is expectant. The placental reabsorption can be accelerated with methotrexate, selective arterial embolization and secondary laparotomy.

So the life of the mother may be in danger, but she is far from doomed! There are procedures for dealing with the risks of advanced abdominal pregnancy – procedures which allow for the possible survival of the child!

What the author is leaving out of this is that it occurs in less than 2% of all ectopic pregnancy cases. And she (lacking a medical background) also leaves out the many dangers along the way when dealing with an abdominal pregnancy. Again, the information is sketchy and not provided in it’s proper context. Ectopic pregnancy occurs in about 19 out of 1000 pregnancies. 98% of those will be located in the tube. That’s less than 1 in a thousand that will occur in the abdomen. The statistic this author provided of survival of an abdominal pregnancy is 1 in 5000. 1 in 5000 when you’ve got a pregnancy that’s already 1 in a 1000. And even she admits that the mortality rate (even with all that we know) is about 50%. We’re way out of the realm of “statistical possibility” as stated by Doug Phillips. We’re in statistical probability. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of babies will die with or without treatment. And a huge number of mothers will die without treatment.

And then they call women murderers for trying to save their own lives while grieving the loss of a baby that they wanted and dreamed of. Where’s the compassion?

For those pregnancies which implant in the fallopian tube (far more common than abdominal pregnancy), the dangers are surprisingly moderate. Although many will succumb to scare tactics, a plain reading of the statistics can be very reassuring.


  • Currently, up to 1 of every 50-60 pregnancies is estimated to be ectopic.***
  • Over 100,000 ectopic pregnancies were reported in the US in 1992.
  • 1 out of 2000 ectopic pregnancies ended in the death of the mother for the 1970’s and 1980’s. The mortality rate has fallen even lower in recent years due to advances in medical care. Recent estimates put it at ~3 in 10,000.
  • At least 14 studies have documented that 68 to 77 percent of ectopic pregnancies resolve without intervention (American Academy of Family Physicians).
  • Tubal rupture occurs in approximately 20% of cases. The statistics seem to indicate that this is the number of women whose initial symptom is tubal rupture, i.e. they receive no treatment at all prior to rupture. Studies indicate that another 10-30% may experience rupture while under medical care.
  • Contrary to popular belief, death from rupture is rare where medical attention is available. In the US, 25-50 women die from ectopic pregnancy each year out of about 100,000 reported cases.

I’m amazed that she’s calling these statistics reassuring. She’s correct about the number that resolve on their own, but let’s keep in mind that the resolve being talked about here is spontaneous abortion, the medical term for miscarriage. Yes, ladies, let’s remember that the inflammatory word abortion means that a pregnancy has ended, whether spontaneously or not. And when a fallopian tube ruptures, it causes internal bleeding, shock, infection, and can cause death. 20% of tubes rupture, even when under medical care. That these women survive is because of the excellent care they receive at the hands of their doctors. Using the “wait and see” approach offered by the Vision Forum Ministry types makes the chances much more likely that death will occur for both mother and baby.

After that, the authors math is so far off as to be comical if it weren’t so horribly sad. Comparing the risks of ectopic to the risks of dying in childbirth I find to be especially offensive. I’ll take the risk in childbirth where my baby could survive outside of my womb.

The author of this article misses the bigger picture. She fails to see how lucky we are that we live in a developed country where the risk of death from ectopic pregnancy is so reduced. Keep in mind, however, that it is still the number 1 pregnancy related death in the first trimester. She fails to see that the reason that the death toll is as low as it is stems from our good healthcare and the ability to see that a baby is ectopic and deal with it early.

God created our bodies to work a certain way. Babies were supposed to grow safe and protected in the womb. When that doesn’t happen it always poses great risk to the mother. And to sell women the idea that it’s not Christian to be treated to save their own lives, or that they will be murderers if they do is, in my opinion downright shameful.

It’s sad when one loses a baby, especially when it’s either the mother or the baby. But since the baby is in the mother and can’t live without her, and the mother can continue to live without the baby, it seems to defy logic and reason for the mother to risk her life to continue the pregnancy in the hope that the baby will miscarry without taking her life too.

When ending an ectopic pregnancy, the goal is to preserve the life of the mother. The loss of the baby is an unintended and sad consequence, but by no means immoral.

Edited to add: Since the initial publication of this post, Mrs. In-a-shoe added a link provided by one of her readers that gave five more examples of babies who had survived as ectopic pregnancies and follows those examples with the same question, “Yes, these cases made headlines and amazed the whole world, but how many more cases would do so if we didn’t diagnose and automatically abort them?”. Mrs. Shoe, my answer remains the same:

Here in the United States, with our treatment of termination for ectopic pregnancy, 40 women at least still die from the condition yearly. Your total of 9 examples from all over the world over many years doesn’t compare. Should we start treating ectopic pregnancy the way you suggest, more babies might live, but many many more women will die. It seems that you are totally comfortable with the idea of more women dying each year when they don’t have to. But this pro-life Christian woman is not. Those women’s lives are also valuable, and I support their right to preserve them. And I respectfully disagree with the idea proposed that allowing women to die is pro-life.

Read Full Post »

Remind Me

I make it my personal policy (cannot speak for Anne here) that I do not argue with those who oppose ending a pregnancy to save a mother’s life. Please, please yell at me to stick to that policy. Remind me how foolish it is to get involved in arguments that are impossible for me to handle without getting emotional. Remind me how I vowed to sever any relationship that stood opposed to our decision 3 years ago without ever looking back. Remind me how my parents, my VERY conservative pastors, my most trusted, pro-life Christian mentors supported us. Remind me that I don’t have to answer every single quack who calls me a murderer. Remind me of Karen’s most encouraging words- that in 30 years of working in the pro-life movement, she did not encounter one person who would oppose what we did in our circumstance.

Remind me that I am accountable to NO ONE but God, my Father, and that the law of Doug Phillips does not trump the law of God and the love and mercy of Jesus Christ.

What you do not have to remind me about is that I love my baby.  Had I received anything but a completely terminal diagnosis for her, I would’ve continued on in that pregnancy without question.  I would’ve risked a hysterectomy (which was also a possibility) or the certainty of C-sections for every subsequent delivery.  I would’ve GLADLY welcomed a disabled child into our lives.  That was not our Grace.  I remember the 27 hours of agony I endured to have her born whole.  I remember how it felt when she was born, the strange sensation of birthing her.  I remember holding my firstborn in my hand, and how her hands were folded together and curled up under her cheek, like a baby asleep.  My mom said that my grandpa passed into glory looking exactly the same way.  I remember singing all the lullabies and hymns I had planned for her.  I remember reading Scripture to her.  I remember my mom and dad holding her and how they looked at her with such utter love.  I rejoice that my dad, one of the 5 people on earth to hold her, was the first to hold her iin Heaven and is now joined with her in the heavenly chorus, singing praises to God Almighty in the Heavenly City.  I remember my courageous, loving, amazing husband tell me that however long I held her would never be enough.

See, I’m too emotional… which is why I should never have posted on In a Shoe.

Read Full Post »

Earlier today I ran across an article written by Doug Phillips. It was about the death penalty of Paul Hill (the abortion doctor murderer) and what justifiable homicide really means. I was both shocked and saddened by Mr. Phillip’s stretch to make the issue cover the heartbreaking reality that is an ectopic pregnancy.

Doug Phillips is an excellent lawyer. He has a knack for swaying opinion and speaking eloquently on a subject. But on this subject I think he lacks both an understanding of the real medical issues surrounding ectopic pregnancy, and a very narrow view of God’s law.

For reference, the article is found here.

As with Paul Hill’s justification of the murder of abortionists, advocates of killing unborn babies “for the life of the mother” reason that it is o.k. for a mother to kill her child if it is an act of self-defense. But Paul Hill and pro-life exception advocates fail the biblical test. Both are terribly guilty of borrowing from pragmatic, non-biblical arguments, and twisting the Scriptures to justify a desired result.

I find it interesting that one of the first things that Mr. Phillips does is explain that it’s a bad thing to use non-biblical arguments after giving us a definition of justifiable homicide that he admits is partly based on our common law, not scriptural law. But I disagree that ending a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother fails the test scripturally, logically, or in any other way. In fact, I think you have to defy logic altogether and very narrowly interpret the law to make it sinful or wrong to save the mother’s life. And I take issue with the idea that the loss of any baby, even when saving the mother’s life, is the “desired result”. As the mother of a baby whom I wanted desperately, her death was never what I desired.

Several things are worthy of note: First, a baby is not a willful aggressor. This ends the debate on justifiable homicide. A baby neither intends the harm, nor acts aggressively against its mother. (In fact, if “blame” is to be passed, it should rest on the mother, not the baby, since it was the mother’s body which produced the circumstances in which the baby has found himself.) The Bible makes no provision for executing an innocent party (one which lacks intent to harm) in order to help another.

This is simply not true. The intent of the aggressor is not the issue. the issue is whether or not the person (in this case the mother) is truly in harms way.

Just as an aside, I want to take this opportunity to say that I think Mr. Phillips should be ashamed of himself for saying that if blame is to be passed it should be on the mother. No one, certainly not the mother, is assigning blame. It’s tragic and sad to have an ectopic pregnancy, and certainly the mother is in no way at fault. It breaks my heart that any mother grieving the loss of her baby should think for even a moment that it is somehow her fault, even unwillingly. It’s simply not true. The opinion expressed lacks medical understanding of pregnancy. Perhaps Mr. Phillips should stick to the law. When a pregnancy occurs, it is the baby that implants. And of course, neither the baby nor the mother have any influence over where this occurs.

I looked through Exodus and can find nothing to support Mr. Phillips claim that “The common law defense of justifiable homicide is derived from the case laws of Exodus which make clear that one may use lethal force if necessary in defense of self or others where imminent life-endangering harm is threatened and lethal force is necessary to prevent the crime.” It seems the laws in Exodus are about personal injury and the commandment not to murder. In other words, the laws of Exodus are about restitution for injury and death, not the appropriateness of killing. Perhaps that’s why Mr. Phillips fails to offer biblical evidence to bolster his case. He seems to think we’ll just take his word for it.

The definition for justifiable homicide that is given by Mr. Phillips is actually derived from American law, not biblical law. Another reason that I scoff at his insistence that it is those on my side of the argument who are guilty of using non-biblical arguments. His whole understanding of this issue is heavily colored by his law background and not influenced at all by the medical facts surrounding ectopic pregnancy.

What I did find in the bible were verses like Deuteronomy 19:4 ” This is the rule concerning the man who kills another and flees there to save his life—one who kills his neighbor unintentionally, without malice aforethought.”

It seems that the intention of the person threatening the other’s life is not at all what is important in biblical law, but the intention of the person who is taking the life of the other. In a case of ectopic pregnancy since the mother does not end the pregnancy with any kind of malice, but with grief, and the goal is not the death of the baby but the preservation of the life of the mother it hardly seems comparable to murder.

Second, while the unborn baby in the case of an ectopic pregnancy may pose a threat which could materialize into a harm to the mother, the threat is not imminent in the classic sense, nor is it conclusive that the baby’s presence necessarily will cause harm. All that is known is that it might cause harm. Consequently, the murder of the baby takes place in anticipation of a statistical possibility. Here again, the biblical requirements for justifiable homicide are not met.

First of all, Mr. Phillips should clarify that it’s not the biblical requirements of justifiable homicide that he believes this doesn’t meet, but the common law definition that he’s given. Even so, I disagree with his conclusion. His statement shows a gross misunderstanding of ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancies occur in the fallopian tube about 98% of the time. Other times they can occur in the cervix, ovary, or other internal organ. These are not places that were ever intended for a baby to grow. Once the baby reaches a certain size, they literally explode the organ in which they are growing. This causes internal bleeding in the mother and is most definitely life-threatening. Saying that one shouldn’t end the ectopic pregnancy because it might not hurt them is akin to saying that police shouldn’t shoot the suspect holding them at gunpoint because it’s statistically possible that the suspect might not shoot. It’s misleading to say that it’s a statistical possibility. In fact its a probability. In fact, it is the most likely thing to occur.

I believe in a God who makes sense and loves me. When you look at it in it’s most honest context, ectopic pregnancy is the number 1 reason that women die in the first trimester of pregnancy. The baby cannot survive if their mother dies. So, is it prolife to have both mother and child die? Or is it pro-life to regret the loss of the baby, but to save the mother?

What kind of principle is being defended by letting women die in the hopes that perhaps the baby will survive? We’ve all heard about the babies who have lived as abdominal pregnancies or ovarian pregnancies. And there is a reason they make news. The chances are less than one in a million.

The bible tells a story of Jesus walking through a vinyard and eating grapes on the Sabbath. When stopped and chastised for working on the day of rest, Jesus explains that the Sabbath day was man for man, not man for the Sabbath. It makes sense that it means more to God that we feed ourselves than to starve just to avoid working on the Lord’s Day. God doesn’t need the law, it is made for us, to make our lives better. The law is life-giving and freedom-giving. But, as it is interpreted by Vision Forum Ministries it seems to be neither of those.

It seems that Doug Phillips thinks that it makes more sense for both mother and child to die to preserve a pro-life principle than for the mother to end the pregnancy and have one of them live. Perhaps she’ll live to have more children and bring more life into the world.

The way he explains the law it no longer follows a sense of basic logic, and I reject that it’s “unbiblical pragmatism”. Mr. Phillips fails to make his biblical case, logical case, or medical case. But he certainly sounds good doing it.

Read Full Post »