Situations in which the life of a pregnant mother is threatened are rare and typically include the contracting of cancer or an ectopic pregnancy. Neither of these cases necessitates the direct killing of a preborn child despite any physician’s recommendations to the contrary. Simply put, intentionally terminating the life of a preborn child never protects the life of the mother.
It is true that some treatments for cancer can expose the preborn child to certain risks, but this is never the intention in administering such therapy. Some women choose to delay treatment until after the birth of the child. Some women, such as Chiara Corbella Petrillo, choose a path of notable heroic virtue. What is sparkling crystal clear is that intentionally aborting a preborn child never has and never will cure cancer.
It is also true that, in order to preserve the life of the mother, ectopic pregnancies require medical procedures that indirectly end the preborn child’s life, though this is never the intention. Hold on a second! It is assumed this is the case with ectopic pregnancies, but is it? Must a preborn child’s life be indirectly terminated in order to preserve the life of the mother? Dr. Patrick Johnston’s article, “Does an ectopic pregnancy justify intentionally killing the baby?” challenges this common belief and covers the topic in a way that might surprise you.