One More Time on Ectopic Pregnancy

In response to my continuing questions, Notre Dame law prof Julian Velasco argues for a meaningful moral distinction between removal of the embryo and removal of the tube in which the embryo is located:

There is a general rule -- thou shalt not kill.  There is no doubt that removing the baby is killing it.  The only question is whether removing thetube is the same as killing the baby.  My argument is that knowing the baby will die as a result of my actions is not the same thing as killing the baby; thus, removing the tube is not the same as killing the baby.  But if I am wrong, then the answer is not that killing the baby is fine, but rather that removing the tube is wrong (because it is killing the baby). Furthermore, even if I am wrong with respect to the last sentence, then there may be an exception for the extreme case of ectopic pregnancies, but that would not be proof that either the embryo is not a baby or that abortion is generally acceptable.

BTW, I understand that it is the embryo's growth within the tube that threatens the mother's life, and it is the embryo's growth within the tube that I am trying to stop.  But I insist that not all means of achieving that goal are acceptable.  Directly killing another (the baby) is not acceptable under any circumstances (IMHO).  But removal of a body part is.  That removal is neither directly killing nor intending to kill the baby; it is only done with knowledge that the baby will die as a result. Without more, is not enough to impute moral culpability.

For an entirely different perspective on these issues, check out Eugene Volokh's forthcoming article on a constitutional right to medical self-defense.

Rob