giz2000
Well-known member
Quote:
I totally agree with you 100%...
I totally agree with you 100%...
Originally Posted by tsukiyomi
It's the principle of it. A life is a life. They shouldn't be going to waste in the first place. |
Originally Posted by lipstickandhate
I don't even understand the debate. You need a uterus for a baby to grow. No uterus= no baby, its pretty simple. |
Originally Posted by Kimberleigh
Of course, but the embryo won't survive if the mother doesn't survive...so technically, yes, a uterus is needed. |
Originally Posted by Raerae
Thats not true. The danger in a ectopic pregnancies is not taking the baby to term. It's in the delivery. The danger involves how the placenta makes an intimate attachment with the body during the development of a embryo. And due to the intimate attachment it makes with whatever organ it latches onto, removing the placenta can be life threatening to the mother because of the difficulty in stoping the bleeding, depending on where the placenta attached. Thats why we get a period. The lining of the uterous allows the placenta to attach to a part of our body were designed the shed naturally. So typically, giving birth is not life threatening. Granted it's not w/out the possibility of complications. So yeh... You can still bring a baby to term in a ectopic pregnancy. But it's a very high risk type of a pregnancy, so typically if a ectopic pregnancy is detected, it will be terminated because they are so high risk. Edit Again: To clarify, talking more about abdominal pregnancies since this would be a pregnancy w/out any part of the uterous/fallopian tubes etc. Not your typical ectopic, which is a tubal pregnancy. Taking a baby to term in a tubal would be very dangerious to the mother. Edit: Case Study on it... It's really REALLY rare for this to happen. But it is possible. http://ijms.sums.ac.ir/0012/motazedian0012.html |