Just as a point of clarification : abortion is never “ok”. What you May be thinking of are cases like ectopic pregnancies where surgical intervention is performed with the express purpose of saving the life of the mother.
That an unfortunate side effect of such procedures is the sad loss of the baby is just that: an unintended consequence. In other words it’s never the intent in procedures that treat cases like ectopic pregnancies to kill the baby. That’s not the intent of the procedure. The intent is to save the mother.
In this way we can then see consistency in the pro life position. Because it will never be acceptable to kill an unborn baby no matter how much it may “pain” the mother (in other words “emotional distress” and similar “ethical” trickery can never be used to justify a procedure who’s primary intent is to kill the baby)
This doesn’t just apply to ectopic pregnancies. Any procedure done with the intent to treat the mother, to help her, and not done with any intent to kill the baby is morally acceptable. Of course there’s a certain level of intellectual honesty reauired here (the participants can’t just *say* they are only helping the mother when in actuality there is intent to kill the baby). Such people will have to answer to God.
The problem is, an ectopic pregnancy will result in the death of the mother anyway, which WILL result in the death of the baby as well (obviously).
It’s a lose/lose situation.
In that case, the morally acceptable thing to do is SAVE the life of the mother, and not at the expense of a gruesome death of the baby.