So I will ask again Jacob. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy where if the mother does not get an abortion both her and the baby will die would you say she should get an abortion?

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Well, still you said that 100% of babies and ladies die without an abortion, that is a compete lie. Jacobistheman

There are 4 things that could happen in an ectopic pregnancy:

1. no treatment and 50% of the woman die and the other 50% have spontaneous abortions.
2. nonsurgical treatment resulting in cessation of pregnancy.
3. surgical treatment removing the pregancy
4. surgical treatment removing the tube the pregnancy is taking place in.

It does not say that in Wikipedia you are misunderstanding the data. Wikipedia says that of the woman who survive without treatment it is because they had spntaneous abortions therefore the baby has to die for the mother to live without treatment. And in both surgical and nonsurgical treatment wikipedia says the baby is aborted no matter how you do it. It doesn't say anywhere that successful surgery means neither dies.

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]Look on wikipedia. "The survival rate of the uterine fetus of an ectopic pregnancy is around 70%". Quote where it says that the mother and fetus are guaranteed to die, I have looked at a ton of sources and none of them have said anything about this. Jacobistheman

That is in a heterotropic pregnancy and the 70% survival rate is for the baby that is in the uterus not the baby in the fallopian tubes it is different than an ectopic pregnancy.

There are 4 things that could happen in an ectopic pregnancy:

1. no treatment and 50% of the woman die and the other 50% have spontaneous abortions.
2. nonsurgical treatment resulting in cessation of pregnancy.
3. surgical treatment removing the pregancy
4. surgical treatment removing the tube the pregnancy is taking place in.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]

The link I had up earlier. Here it is again, it was the second one to come up on google. http://www.medicinenet.com/ectopic_pregnancy/article.htm and wikipedia.

Jacobistheman

Please quote for me the section in which it says that the fetus located in the fallopian tubes has a 70% chance of survival.

As I already said, there are three treatments available: a drug-induced miscarriage, the surgical removal of the embryo, and the surgical removal of the fallopian tube in which the embryo resides. In none of these cases can the embryo possibly survive. And in the 50% of cases in which the mother survives without medical intervention, it is because she miscarries naturally. The link you provided corroborates that fact perfectly.

That is in a heterotropic pregnancy and the 70% survival rate is for the baby that is in the uterus not the baby in the fallopian tubes it is different than an ectopic pregnancy.

From Wikipedia**

If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are the tubal abortions. The advent of methotrexate treatment for ectopic pregnancy has reduced the need for surgery; however, surgical intervention is still required in cases where the Fallopian tube has ruptured or is in danger of doing so. This intervention may be laparoscopic or through a larger incision, known as a laparotomy.

This means that while yes if untreated 50% of the woman survived but it was because their body initiated a tubal abortion.

Nonsurgical treatment

Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy with the antimetabolite methotrexate has proven to be a viable alternative to surgical treatment[13] since 1993[citation needed] (though the literature dates back to at least 1989).[14] If administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate can disrupt the growth of the developing embryo causing the cessation of pregnancy.

Surgical treatment

If hemorrhaging has already occurred, surgical intervention may be necessary if there is evidence of ongoing blood loss. However, as already stated, about half of ectopics result in tubal abortion and are self limiting. The option to go to surgery is thus often a difficult decision to make in an obviously stable patient with minimal evidence of blood clot on ultrasound.

Surgeons use laparoscopy or laparotomy to gain access to the pelvis and can either incise the affected Fallopian and remove only the pregnancy (salpingostomy) or remove the affected tube with the pregnancy (salpingectomy). The first successful surgery for an ectopic pregnancy was performed by Robert Lawson Tait in 1883

And these show that in both treatment options the fetus is aborted

What about an ectopic pregnancy (the egg implants in the fallopian tubes)? That's a case where it's 100% guaranteed that both will die if nothing is done.

GabuEx

This one. An actual case of guaranteed death of both mother and child.

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] You can never be so it is completely irrelevant, but like I said before, I would not support it. Jacobistheman

This implies that in the event that it did happen you would not support the abortion. In any case a fictional example does not make it any less relevent to what you consider to be important. by refusing to answer the question you do nothing to prove contrary to my claim that you value an ideal more than human life.

So what about GabuEx's REAL example of ectopic pregnancy? what do you think should be done then?

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] I would not support the abortion, you never know that both would definatly die so that situation is irrelevant anyway. Jacobistheman

For arguments sake lets say it was 100% sure that both would die. this is completely relevent

This implies that in the event that it did happen you would not support the abortion. In any case a fictional example does not make it any less relevent to what you consider to be important. by refusing to answer the question you do nothing to prove contrary to my claim that you value an ideal more than human life.

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] I place more value in a human life than an idea, but I still don't support killing one human to save another because there is a chance that if you don't kill that one, both will die. Jacobistheman

No you said that even in the case that it was 100% certain that both would die if an abortion did not take place you think that both should die.

But you said earlier that even if it did happen you would still think both should die.

[QUOTE="piratedrunk"]

I suppose you still can't refute that you place more value in an ideal than human life?

Jacobistheman

No you said that even in the case that it was 100% certain that both would die if an abortion did not take place you think that both should die.