ectopic pregnancy and moral reasoning

I think the basic disagreement here is over a broader question of moral reasoning. The basic point I was trying (albeit not too clearly) was that there are moral absolutes. There are exceptionless moral norms that must be honored even if the actor has a good motive or has some further intention (sometimes described as remote or ulterior) that is good. So, persons have a right not to be killed, even if they are going to die soon and even if their killing would result in some good effects (relieve their suffering and the suffering of their family, save money, etc.). So, in the questions put by Michael Perry, I'd say that the fetus has a right not to be killed (this violates the exceptionless moral norm described by May, and by JP II in Veritatis Spelndor and Evangelium Vitae, that there should be no intentional killing of an innocent human person), even if everything else he says is true. That act is a violation of human dignity, even if the fetus would soon die or might die from other methods (removal of the fallopian tube).

The stakes here are quite high (this broader issue of moral reasoning) even though the ectopic pregnancy instance is a hard case. Kelly Bowring describes this well in his article, where he mentions that his wife was faced with an ectopic pregnancy that was treated by salpingectomy. I think his wife has gone on to have 5-6 children since that time.

Richard M.