The only time I believe it not sinful to surgically cause the death of an unborn child is in cases such as ectopic pregnancy . Should such pregnancies not be dealt with promptly, both mother and child are going to die...that is as certain as anything can be in this life. The developing fetus will die and the nurturing mother also will die. No other outcome without divine intervention.

People die sometimes, despite the very best intentions and procedures of well-trained men and women in their behalf. When an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed, the mother usually is already enduring pain, which will increase geometrically until, after very few days, she dies. In such cases, the unborn child will likely predecease the mother, but even if it does not will surely die because there presently are no procedures for supporting human life and development at such an early stage.

The physician attending a woman suffering from an ectopic pregnancy must provide all information necessary to the mother or, if her ability to make reasonable decisions is impaired as a result of her condition, the party with that authority. A decision is required. Shall the doctor attempt to save the life of the mother, though the developing child will be killed? Or should he do nothing and allow both mother and child to die? As you see, the decision here is either to attempt to save one life, or to do nothing and let both die.

I believe the ectopic pregnancy issue is similar to a dilemma faced by a person who comes upon the scene of a recent automobile crash. He can see two people trapped in the car. Both are alive. As he approaches the car to help, it begins to burn violently. As flames approach the area where the two people are, he sees that he shall only have time to rescue one of them. The driver is being held against the roof of the car by the steering column, and will be impossible to extract without major hydraulic equipment. The passenger is held in the car only by her seat belt.

The would be rescuer must immediately choose from among three alternatives:

1) He can go against the odds and attempt to free the driver, knowing that the passenger will surely burn to death, and that the effort to yank the driver free of the steering column has a near-zero likelihood of being successful.

2) He can free the passenger, understanding that there is no possibility of saving the driver with the equipment and skills available to him.

3) He can decide that, since he cannot save both, he will save neither, knowing that both will die.

It is comforting to know God does not suffer from our human limitations in such matters. He can search the heart and He is always just. Whether He chooses to forgive the doctor who performs a surgical intervention to save a mother's life or to condemn him for his action, it is good to know the decision will be perfect.

When I posted those words on a pro-life web page, my intention was to make clear that, though rare, there are times when medical professionals and their patients are confronted with the extremely difficult choice of whether to attempt to save a mother's life, knowing that her unborn child's life would be forfeit, or to allow both to die. I wrote this from the viewpoint of one who had paid his dues as a pro-life activist and educator.

I received an email from someone who, it seemed, strongly disagreed with what I had written.

well for your scenario on who i would save, I would take my fire extinguisher and put out the flame on the car, while at the same time putting my faith and prayer in God.

This individual, who later identified himself as a Catholic religious, used a typically Catholic tactic in his effort to refute what I had written: He changed the scenario to suit the argument he used. The original situation made no mention of a fire extinguisher, yet this individual used one in his response—thereby begging the original issue.

Having resolved that issue to his satisfaction, my correspondent—he gave his name as Mike—then turned to another tactic well-favored by defenders of the yellow and white banner of Rome. Mike switched to an ad hominem approach, which my Miriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines in these terms:

1 : directed at or appealing to one's hearer's or reader's personal feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect and reason
2 : marked by attack on an opponent's character rather than by answer to his contentions -- "ad hominem." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. (4 May 2008).

Mike wrote:

you show your lack of faith in God by your "ok to kill mentality". Their is no excuse to kill, if you do, you are a murderer. Do you think God will understand when he says "why did you kill an innocent child" and you will say "in hopes to save the mother"? do you think God will reward you for being heroic? or call you a coward and a murderer for not trusting in him. to me you are saying that God's will does not matter, but that you and the doctors know best when it comes to life.

As I read the above, it seemed to me that Mike was endorsing option 3 above. I had an image of him standing by the burning car, empty fire extinguisher in hand, watching and praying as both the passenger and driver were consumed in flames. Wait! I forgot that he used his fire extinguisher to put out the violently burning flames. Mike must carry a quite large fire bottle in his car.

I am convinced that God hears the prayers of the faithful, and that He responds to them. I am also aware that His response may not always be affirmative. God is sovereign and surely not obliged to grant our every petition. He may answer our petitions with a variety of responses running from, "Yes, my child," through "Not now" or "Maybe later," all the way to "Not now; not ever."

I have the impression that in Mike's world God always responds with a "Yes, my child."

Mike then switched to a variation of the Catholic apologetic position I call "You just don't understand."

It is funny how much you seem to know about Catholicism, but yet know so little. It is as though you have much book knowledge, but no comprehension. I find it funny that you find so much fault in the church that chirst started without a doubt, but yet you do not even have 2 articles on jehovah's witnesses, lds, sda, or christain scientists who do not even know Jesus.

Though Mike had begun his email with his views on something I wrote at my Pro-Life website, he closed it with his opinion concerning the content of the articles at my Catholic Stuf web site. Other than its providing an excuse for a bit of self-righteous whining, I cannot imagine why Mike would even anticipate encountering articles on the JWs, Mormons, Adventists or Christian Scientists on a web site devoted to examining Catholicism. Perhaps it's just a smoke screen.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; -- 1 Timothy 4:1-2

I responded to Mike, or "Mikey" as his return address declared, but it bounced back. The reason given was that the user was unknown. If interested, you may read my response in the following post on this thread.