[TheThirdRuffian]

I am not quite sure the article got the nuance of the Jewish law on abortion, as I understand it.

Basically, abortion is only permitted if continuing the pregnancy will almost certainly end in the death of the mother and child, e.g., an ectopic pregnancy.

I’m a pro-life Catholic, and I am not sure there is any disagreement with the Church’s position.

[nickcarraway]

I am not sure there is any disagreement with the Church’s position.

You apparently don't know the Church's teaching on ectopic pregnancy. Look up the concept of double effect. In an ectopic pregnancy, both the mother and child would die. The Church teaches it's acceptable to unwrap the umbilical cord, to rectify that, even though it would probably result in the death of the baby. But that's still different than going in with the express purpose of killing the baby. One is intentionally trying to kill the baby, one is trying to correct a problem, which may have an unfortunate consequence.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's right but only in this sense: removal of an ectopic pregnancy = removal of a fallopian tube or a section thereof. It is not an abortion technique (you won't, for instance, find it in any instructional course on how to do abortions.)

It is a treatment of a diseased fallopian tube.

If in the course of this treatment the baby dies, that's a baby-death but it's not an abortion. It's a (predictable) side-effect of removing a diseased fallopian tube, in a situation where in any case the baby cannot be saved.