This is not hair-splitting in the opprobrious sense of that term. The bases of all sins are absolutely abstract principles, and because abstract principles can not be pinched or weighed, they have often little meaning for the opposition in an argument. There is only the width of a hair between Heaven and Hell at many places along the frontier, and there is only the difference between a direct or an indirect volition separating murder and a good deed. The best ethics frequently consists in delicate hair-splitting; and despite the protests of sentimentalists, one of the most valuable benefits of Moral Science is [{26}] to show us how to handle moral poisons for good purposes, as a physician uses the material poisons, opium and aconite.
If the foetus in this case of rupture in ectopic gestation were a materially unjust aggressor on the mother's life, the indirect hastening of its death would be justifiable according to all moralists, and the direct hastening would be licit according to Cardinal de Lugo, who was, in the opinion of St. Alphonsus, "post D. Thomam inter alios theologos facile princeps" (Th. Mor., lib. 4. n. 552).
Sabetti held that the foetus is a materially unjust aggressor. His reason for this opinion is that the extrauterine foetus is not in a position in which it has a right to be. If it were in the uterus, its natural position, it would have a right to its position. Ectopic gestation is a disease, not a physiological condition.
Father Aertnys (Amer. Eccl, Rev., July, 1893) denies that the foetus is an aggressor materially unjust. He says: "Nequaquam enim mortem intentat matri, sed actione, quam non ipse sed corpus matris producit, conatur ad lucem pervenire, et iste conatus non nisi ex naturali concursu rerum fit matri causa mortis. Infans ergo non est aggressor et multo minus est aggressor injustus. Hinc nego paritatem cum homine mente capto, qui delirans alteri mortem intentat; hic enim agit motus a sua voluntate, licet absque culpa, et ponit actiones in se injustas, utpote ad necandum directe intentas."
In the same periodical (January, 1894) while repeating this statement he says: "Sive in utero existat sive alibi reconditus sit [sc. foetus], nequaquam mortem intentat matri, siquidem non ipse actione propria conatur egredi, sed corpus matris infantem expellit et haec expulsio a matre emanans fit matri causa mortis."
What Father Aertnys says in these two passages is true of an intrauterine foetus, but it is altogether erroneous when applied to an extrauterine foetus, of which alone there is question here. In extrauterine pregnancy the uterus or any other part of the maternal body does not "try to expel" the foetus; the uterus has nothing at all to do with the case—the very name of the condition is extra-uterine pregnancy. If an ectopic gestation [{27}] goes on to term (a very rare happening), there will be false labour and uterine contractions, and these cease after a time without effect one way or the other; but in all cases of rupture and the like the uterus is outside the question and the mother is passive. There is no attempt by the mother in extrauterine pregnancy at expulsion either before rupture or at any other time unless the dead foetus putrefies, and the maternal tissues "try to expel" it as a foreign body by breaking down into an abscess. The foetus simply grows, and its bulk bursts the tube. If it were in the uterus, the uterus would enlarge synchronously with the foetus and there would be no rupture, but the tube will not give beyond a certain point, therefore it bursts.
In normal uterine pregnancy at term the uterus and other maternal muscles are the active factors in expelling the foetus—the foetus is passive. In ectopic gestation the foetus is active, the mother is passive, and there is no attempt at expulsion from either side. In this case the foetus in the tube through the action of its own vital principle draws nourishment from the mother and grows gradually larger till it bursts the tube (it may even move its arms and legs if advanced), and this rupture tears open arteries wherethrough the mother bleeds, commonly to death. This is evidently material aggression.
Father Aertnys says the foetus differs from the murderous lunatic in this, that the madman is moved by his will, although blamelessly, in doing unjust actions directly intended as homicidal. The fact that the lunatic uses his will has no weight whatever in permitting me to defend my life against him, it is an accidental thing outside the question; but Father Aertnys in mentioning the madman's will means solely, if I understand him, that the madman is really an active aggressor. The foetus, however, is also an active aggressor without using its will. I might fall from a height toward a man and certainly endanger his life while I was not using my will at all, not conscious of the man's presence under me, or even while I was using all the power of my will against the result. In any of these cases I should be a materially unjust aggressor; and if in trying to prevent my body from killing him the man killed me, he would be blameless.
Now, in the first place, the tubal foetus is an aggressor; and since, secondly, its position is unnatural, monstrous, a disease, a thing not intended by nature, it has no right to its position, and it is therefore a materially unjust aggressor. Since it is an aggressor on the very life of the mother in a place where it should not be, the surgeon therefore may at the least stop the fatal bleeding it causes. If the foetus dies as an unwished for, though permitted, consequence of this haemostasis, the surgeon may lament this result, but he is blameless.