In a Ectopic pregnancy, the doctor performing the procedure is not killing the child. It is a necessary medical procedure to save the mother. That is not considered the willful taking of a life, and that is the position of the Catholic Church, which does not believe in abortion under any circumstance.
Abortion is always evil - it intends to directly kill a child. It is never allowed even to save the life of the mother. The Church clearly teaches that “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (Catechism, 1789).
However, in the case you describe, the mother’s malfunctioning organ (fallopian tube, or a portion of it), may be morally removed to eliminate the risk to the mother. The intent here is to remove an organ that is about to rupture (no different than if a tumor was there). To not do so would be life threatening to the mother. It is unfortunate that the threat happens to be caused by an abnormal pregnancy. If the child dies his or her death is not directly intended but is tolerated as an unintended consequence. (In the future it might be possible to implant such a child into the uterus. Until such time, however, the procedure is still moral.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17307
I have heard all of the political and emotional arguments for the “except in the case of rape or incest” illogic and though they are seductive, they are not convincing.
From the political perspective, one might suggest that there is a better chance of getting anti-abortion legislation passed when exceptions are allowed and I have no reason to doubt that assertion. From the emotional angle, we all have heart-felt sympathy for the victimized mother.
There is a powerful reluctance to force a woman to continue her physically demanding and emotionally draining role in the most divine function of God’s nature when the initiation of that process was without the mother’s normally assumed consent. We would be assigning to her the responsibility to carry into this world a new soul who will be a seemingly unholy combination of her own self and of a man who is either frighteningly unknown or sinfully familiar.
There is, of course, the almost inescapable temptation to assume this new person will somehow not be good because the genetic code of a rapist was used in his/her construction. Or that the new person will somehow not be complete because of the potential for physiological problems to arise when daddy is grandpa.
Adoption is always an option when the post-birth burdens outweigh the natural desire of the mother to nurture a child which is, after all, still half her.
On any scientific or logical rationale, assuming human life has value, I would ask two questions:
-Does it continue to grow and change via natural biologic process? - If so, it is alive.
-What will you call this life if the natural process is allowed to continue? - If the answer is ‘human’, then it has rights.
More directly to your point, if that life inside you is threatening your life, then you are allowed to defend yourself. No different than if your kid was trying to kill you with a gun. Thanks for helping to point that out to some here inventing false choices.
Thank you, Luther1917. I don’t see it as an abortion at all since the child is going to die either way and the mother’s life is at risk. The reason that I stated that “some” may view it as an abortion is a previous thread many months ago.. a FReeper suggested that “nature should take its course” rather than removal of the fetus. Hence, the woman should die in “God’s grace” rather than be saved via the death of a child. I don’t know where to even go with that mentality but to say it takes all kinds!
In the movie The Cardinal (based on a novel, but I don't recall the author's name), the sister of the future cardinal becomes pregnant out of wedlock and later it is the case that the only way to save her life is to crush the baby's skull--since she was not married the decision is up to the future cardinal and he has to tell them to save the baby and allow his sister to die.
I read somewhere that in this kind of situation, Jewish ethics would say to save the mother's life--but I don't know if that is true of all the different traditions of Jewish ethics (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform).