Intention to Kill vs. Foreseeing Death as a Side Effect

[Jaxb]

What do you think of the distinction between intending to kill someone and foreseeing that a person would die as a side effect of saving another person's life?

Suppose a woman's life is in danger because of an ectopic pregnancy and a surgeon removes the entire fallopian tube from her body. Her life would be spared, but the embryo would die. Those who agree with that distinction would say that the surgeon did have necessarily have the intention to kill someone. He intended to save the woman's life. The surgeon foresaw that the death of the embryo would be the consequence. What do you think?

[Cow Poke]

...Those who agree with that distinction would say that the surgeon did have necessarily have the intention to kill someone.

The awkward sentence structure aside, motive should always be considered when evaluating somebody's actions. As you put this thread in pro-life activism, it's obvious you intend to address the "abortion is acceptable in the case of saving the life of the mother". I think that's pretty widely held even among us staunch anti-abortion believers, with the concern that it's easily open to abuse.

[Sparko]

Jaxb, this is a nondebate area.

[Jaxb]

The awkward sentence structure aside, motive should always be considered when evaluating somebody's actions. As you put this thread in pro-life activism, it's obvious you intend to address the "abortion is acceptable in the case of saving the life of the mother". I think that's pretty widely held even among us staunch anti-abortion believers, with the concern that it's easily open to abuse.

That's true. One's motives should always be considered. Just out of curiosity, does anyone believe that one should not treat an ectopic pregnancy if it leads to the death of the unborn child?

[Sparko]

That's true. One's motives should always be considered. Just out of curiosity, does anyone believe that one should not treat an ectopic pregnancy if it leads to the death of the unborn child?

Ectopic pregnancy always leads to the death of the child whether treated or not. The point is whether to let it kill just the child, or the child and the mother.

[Leonhard]

The awkward sentence structure aside, motive should always be considered when evaluating somebody's actions. As you put this thread in pro-life activism, it's obvious you intend to address the "abortion is acceptable in the case of saving the life of the mother". I think that's pretty widely held even among us staunch anti-abortion believers, with the concern that it's easily open to abuse.

The Catholic Church, and a stauncher opposition to abortion is hard to find, still allows doctors to extract the uterus of a mother who has an ectopic pregnancy. The death of the child is considered an unfortunate accident of the fact that we can't keep very young fetuses alive yet due to our limited technology.

It is not called abortion in this case either.

[Jedidiah]

This is still might close to debate. The question belongs elsewhere.