An ectopic pregnancy makes it to 32 weeks, Mom and baby are doing fine:
When doctors told Nicky Soto that her baby was growing outside her womb, the Arizona mom was stunned and scared. Soto was told that her life would be at risk if she opted to continue with the ectopic pregnancy — and no one held out much hope that the baby would survive.But Soto, 27, had struggled for five years to become pregnant. After some soul searching, she decided to take the risk, fearing that this might be her last chance.
by 
This is a wonderful story, but I wonder, what would any of you have thought had the mother decided to abort? Would it have been understandable/approvable in this case?
Christy,
Not abortion the way it is usually practised, ie. deliberately killing the child. But any action that is intended for and directed at saving the life of the mother is acceptable. For the most common form of ectopic pregnancy (tubal) this could involve removing the fallopian tube. The baby’s death would be collateral damage, so to speak, but not directly intended. This particular pregnancy seems to have been abdominal rather than tubal, and the mother’s chances in this case depend on where the placenta attaches. If the mother’s life were in danger, I believe it would be acceptable to deliver the baby early by cesarian section, even if the gestational age is too low for survival. Definitely not OK to deliberately kill the baby though.
In fact, early delivery is exactly what they did in this case, and fortunately the baby was far enough along at 32 weeks that survival was not an issue.
Dan: At one point near the beginning of one of my pregnancies I was told I might have a tubal pregnancy, and while we waited for the ultrasound to confirm if that was causing the pain I was feeling, (it wasn’t) I was told that if it was I would be offered a chemical abortion, rather than the removal of the fallopian. The point would be to kill the baby so it would come out without damaging the tube. According to your sense of ethics would doing so have been less ethical than removing the whole tube as you describe?
Hi Christy,
That might depend on which drug was being proposed and how it acts. If its action can reasonably be described as “causing the fallopian tube to return to normal” and ejection of the implanted embryo can reasonably be described as a side effect, then it may have been OK. Intent plays a substantial role, in my view. If your intent were to restore your health (particularly if the situation were dire) *and* your actions were not directed at harming your child (even if you had reasonable certainty that your child would die as a result of your actions) then I think you would be on reasonable ethical ground.
I don’t know whether removal of the fallopian tube would have been the best course of action, although it may well have been, given that a damaged fallopian tube is a risk factor for future ectopic pregnancies. Also, given that half of ectopic pregnancies end naturally (ie. abort spontaneously, and the child dies a natural death rather than a deliberately caused death) it would seem wise to wait through the early part of the pregnancy and see what happens.
I’m glad that your pregnancy was not tubal, and hope it all went well for both you and your child.