Surgery for Tubal Pregnancy Deemed an Elective Abortion??? The Discussion of Vision Forum’s Fiat Raises More Questions

Print Friendly

A follow-up to:

Vision Forum, Samaritan Ministries Take Extreme “Pro-Life” Position on Ectopic Pregnancies

Following the previous post about Vision Forum’s plans to advance their thesis regarding surgical treatment for tubal pregnancy before confirmed death of an unborn baby as the ethical equivalent of elective abortion, several insightful questions have been presented in different areas around the blogosphere including the NLQ Forum.  They are worth noting.

The discussion raised some interesting questions about the actual risk (morbidity and mortality) related to ectopic pregnancy as weighed against the chance of a non-tubal ectopic pregnancy producing a live birth.  Refer to this HERE at Under Much Grace which includes some great diagrams and statistics from sources including the CDC and Lancet.

Most notably, ectopic pregnancy accounts for 6-9% of all maternal deaths in the US. Assuming that these statistics also apply to other developed countries and those countries that do not provide state-of-the-art care to their citizens, this translates to a rough single year death rate of 25,000 worldwide (in 2008 based on Lancet’s estimate) due to ectopic pregnancy.

And the odds of a baby from non-tubal ectopic pregnancy surviving the pregnancy? One in 60 million. That means that worldwide (assuming a general birthrate of 134 million annually for the past 30 years), only one such birth occurs every 6.7 years, based on a now current and somewhat stable global birth rate.

Vision Forum will laud one baby every 7 years while 25,000 mothers die in one year? Hmmm.

This information out of Lancet and from the CDC paints quite a different picture than Samaritan Ministry’s publications when they reproduced Vision Forum’s new dogma.(I think Vyckie’s karma ran over their dogma!)

Is it worth speaking out on behalf of women with ectopic pregnancy, even if it risks the downplay of the significance of the rare live births that result from viable ectopic pregnancies? What will the liberals say?

(I think that they will respect those who are trying to hold their own groups accountable. Liberals think we are hypocrites when we ignore our own problems while pointing out theirs! And they’re right to think so.)

From “dangermom”: What connection does the Schatz Family have to Vision Forum’s decree regarding ectopic pregnancy?

I believe that both issues point out Evangelical Christianity’s avoidant behavior regarding provocative issues that are not easily understood, are unpleasant, and might result in a loss of contributions from people who think it is unchristian to confront error. Rather than engage the serious natures of both these dilemmas, most ministries have completely ignored the matter. Rather than showing Christian compassion to what I am told is a fringe group that doesn’t equate to a “significant demographic,” suffering people who are precious to God are thrown away like so much inconvenient trash.

“Here’s the thing about the Schatz’s–they weren’t a crazy family. They were right there in the mainstream of QF, doing exactly what the Pearls’ book told them to do–to keep “switching” the defiant child until her will was broken and she submitted. They interpreted her cries as defiance, since she wasn’t “whimpering” like the Pearls tell you to expect. All their Christian friends liked them and considered Mrs. Schatz to be a gentle, kind, loving mother. . .

But since the Pearls’ advice is abusive and not Christian at all, a lot of children are severely harmed by it. And a few are going to die, until we get the word out there that it’s an awful book that should be thrown out and never followed. Lydia will not be the last victim, unless conservative Christians rise up and throw the Pearls out of their midst.

The real kicker about the Pearls and their ilk is that if you believe them, you–loving, well-socialized, reasonable you–will accidentally beat your child to death out of love and duty.”

Why is this decree such a big revelation?

This has been the unspoken and understood message within the ranks of the group from the beginning because birthing conveys spiritual blessing as if it were a sacrament.

Manipulative groups that use spiritually abusive tactics have two sets of rules: the Formal Doctrinal Statements and the “Unwritten, Understood Rules” that are conveyed through rhetoric, propaganda technique, and social pressure/proof. This example demonstrates the rare transposition of a provocative vaguely implied rule into a formal one. (Cultic groups generally avoid making direct and definitive statements.)

NLQ Recommends ...

'Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment' by Janet Heimlich

‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce