The morality of an act: CCC 1756 and CCC 2263

[Jaaanosik]

The definition of intrinsically evil acts incorporates the relevant Intentions and Circumstances. Consider the definitions of Murder, Adultery, Lying as examples. We don’t speak of the moral object of Talking or Copulating. We don’t speak of the moral object of words in the dictionary, but only of human acts - for it is they that contain the necessary content to be assessed.

The MORAL object of murder must be an evil MORALLY - not merely a bad, regrettable, even evil (in the physical sense) thing. This is why the qualifiers on killing are incorporated. I see you are focussed on the “objective” but you may be overlooking the “Moral” bit.

The moral object of abortion is not just killing. But rather killing someone in the circumstances that that person is innocent. We know killing innocents is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong regardless of what other circumstances or intents may apply.

If the first doctor believed he was taking the measures truly in the best interests of the patient, he did not act immorally. Perhaps he was grossly incompetent, for sure.

If the (first) doctor chose surgery knowing it was not required, not the best approach, then the amputation has become the moral end, and his act was evil.

The (second) doctor who chooses surgery because it is truly the best option acts morally. Amputation of a limb is a physical evil - but it is not morally evil unless it is the intended end, or the moral object. Physical evil can be tolerated, and even intended, as a bad means to a good end, as long as the physical evil is also not moral evil. The doctor intends to use the physical evil of amputation as a bad means to a good end. This intention and act is moral because the bad means is not moral evil, but only physical evil, and the good consequence of saving a life outweighs the bad consequence of losing a limb.

Note that it’s called “moral object”, not “physical object”. Amputating a leg beset with gangrene in order to save the patient is not just “to amputate a limb”, but “to amputate a sick limb that threatens life”.

In the above statement, you appear to neglect any moral duty the doctor has toward the baby. Is this because you believe:

• the early unborn are not owed a duty?
• this early unborn is doomed anyway?
• this early unborn is not an innocent?
  The mind boggles that murdering another person can be considered “an option”. Back to the snake bite - can you imagine that it would be OK for the second doctor to kill an innocent (specific scenario not required) in order to get his hands on serum in order to avoid amputation?

The other procedure you refer to (metho injection) is “intrinsically evil”, and the circumstances can’t change that. A moral agent could not agree that this procedure is “available”.

What? You can’t do a surgery on the woman, but you can kill a baby? !! As stated above - killing the baby is not an option because **it **is Intrinsically Evil. As per a moral amputation, tube removal is a physical evil for sure, but NOT a moral evil.

You are arguing that tube removal is intrinsically evil because it could have been avoided by simply killing the baby! This is utilitarian, but it is not moral.

The Intention is to save the life of mum in the Circumstances of ectopic pregnancy. These things reside outside the definition of the Intrinsically Evil Act, therefore they cannot make said act moral. They cannot change the moral object.

The moral object of metho injection is plainly to kill the baby, which is an intrinsic evil.

The human nature is founded on the physicality of the body. The physical evil to the body is the moral evil when the physical evil is not necessary. That’s the natural moral law.

A person is holding another person that is going to fall hundreds of meters and get killed, through a gap that is being slowly closed by a steel door.
Does the first person holds ten minutes longer and looses hand in the process or let’s go and saves his hand?

 

[LucyEm]

The human nature is founded on the physicality of the body. The physical evil to the body is the moral evil when the physical evil is not necessary. That’s the natural moral law.

A person is holding another person that is going to fall hundreds of meters and get killed, through a gap that is being slowly closed by a steel door.
Does the first person holds ten minutes longer and looses hand in the process or let’s go and saves his hand?

Lol. I think you need to face the moral truths in one scenario, answer the questions put to you to that end, before searching for yet another scenario!

 

[LongingSoul]

Showing the respect to baby that can not be saved by doing evil to the mother.
The mother does not deserve the respect? Does evil have to be done to her?

Much as it seems like a justifiable step to you… by definition, the direct and voluntary taking of a life in self defense, is unlawful. Throughout history, parents have endured much worse fates for the sake of their child. You talk about the ‘physicality of the body’ being a primary reality of existence. The body, apart from all the justifications and analyses of the mind, experiences the choice made as the killing of its defenseless offspring to save itself. That does not reflect the truth of human nature. Human beings are capable of giving up their own lives for the sake of their children. To experience treatment of the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, the physical body has not gone against its basic nature regarding its offspring.

It was revealed by the Catholic pastoral care counselling organisation in my area at one time, that their biggest ministry was post abortion trauma counselling and that can manifest many years after the event. The physical body and its reactions cannot be overcome by clever mind tricks.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Lol. I think you need to face the moral truths in one scenario, answer the questions put to you to that end, before searching for yet another scenario!

We have different opinions, there is nothing wrong with another related scenario that can explain my position on the injection.
Is it immoral to let go? If yes, then why?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Much as it seems like a justifiable step to you… by definition, the direct and voluntary taking of a life in self defense, is unlawful. Throughout history, parents have endured much worse fates for the sake of their child. You talk about the ‘physicality of the body’ being a primary reality of existence. The body, apart from all the justifications and analyses of the mind, experiences the choice made as the killing of its defenseless offspring to save itself. That does not reflect the truth of human nature. Human beings are capable of giving up their own lives for the sake of their children. To experience treatment of the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, the physical body has not gone against its basic nature regarding its offspring.

It was revealed by the Catholic pastoral care counselling organisation in my area at one time, that their biggest ministry was post abortion trauma counselling and that can manifest many years after the event. The physical body and its reactions cannot be overcome by clever mind tricks.

I understand what you are saying. On some occasions it’s an ultimate sacrifice when parents save their children.
This is not the case, a different scenario, the baby can not be saved. The baby dies when the tube is out.
I’ll relate to my latest example. Is it immoral to let go?

 

[LongingSoul]

I understand what you are saying. On some occasions it’s an ultimate sacrifice when parents save their children.
This is not the case, a different scenario, the baby can not be saved. The baby dies when the tube is out.
I’ll relate to my latest example. Is it immoral to let go?

The body does not know that the baby cannot be saved. The treatment of the fallopian tube (at this time in medical knowledge) might mean an inevitable death of child… but that does not mean that this type of pregnancy is always doomed. Humans have an amazing capacity to save lives through science and technology. The body does not know that the death of the baby is inevitable.

The human ‘will’ has to conform to the best scenario possible ie. the saving of the child… even when the limited intellect is certain that the death is infinitely inevitable.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The body does not know that the baby cannot be saved. The treatment of the fallopian tube (at this time in medical knowledge) might mean an inevitable death of child… but that does not mean that this type of pregnancy is always doomed. Humans have an amazing capacity to save lives through science and technology. The body does not know that the death of the baby is inevitable.

The human ‘will’ has to conform to the best scenario possible ie. the saving of the child… even when the limited intellect is certain that the death is infinitely inevitable.

Now you lost me, I don’t know what you are saying in regards to our discussion.
… and is it immoral to let go?

 

[LucyEm]

We have different opinions, there is nothing wrong with another related scenario that can explain my position on the injection.
Is it immoral to let go? If yes, then why?

Opinions? More than this. Your logic leads you to insurmountable conflicts. I’ve asked you questions throughout to encourage you to face up to them. Instead, you don’t respond. You pursue another line, that can only end the same way. Like a mouse searching for cheese in a maze with no cheese, just dead ends.

 

[LucyEm]

The human nature is founded on the physicality of the body. The physical evil to the body is the moral evil when the physical evil is not necessary. That’s the natural moral law.

The physical evil is necessary when no other superior option is morally available. You assert it is available - that has been your contention all along, despite logic, the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae and moral theologians galore (and, inconsequentially, but for the record, a handful of us CAF amateurs) all standing in opposition to you!

A person is holding another person that is going to fall hundreds of meters and get killed, through a gap that is being slowly closed by a steel door.
Does the first person holds ten minutes longer and looses hand in the process or let’s go and saves his hand?

Presumably, you would like to view the “Hang on” scenario [Lose Hand + man dies] as equivalent to the Tubal Surgery [Lose Tube + baby dies] – both are crazy, eh? Alas, there is no equivalence, not even close!

In the Pregnancy case, there was no moral alternative to the surgery. The alternative you claim exists - that of securing the mum’s recovery by killing the baby is **not available **to us (remember the Pope’s statement in EVANGELIUM VITAE 57?). So instead, we pursue the best **available **option – which is to accept the physical evil of the tube removal as a means to the good end to save the mum. We acknowledge the baby dies as an unintended consequence.

As to the falling man scenario – we probably agree that there is no obligation on the ‘hero’ to persist with his rescue attempt *beyond the point of futility *– to hang on beyond reason. Nothing in the scenario suggests that letting go is a murder, and the act of letting go in the circumstances is a moral act. I believe we both agree on that.

[Assuming here that the ‘hero’ is not really a villain; he didn’t push anyone out the door did he? He didn’t manipulate the circumstances to cover a crime?? ]

Jaaanosik - Invoking this analogy only supports your case if you assume as a given that the metho treatment was morally available. Now as that is the very matter in debate – you are precluded from building an argument that assumes that very issue! So what was the point of introducing the analogy, if not to distract from the issue, and pursue another dead end??

 

[LongingSoul]

The physical evil is necessary when no other superior option is morally available. You assert it is available - that has been your contention all along, despite logic, the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae and moral theologians galore (and, inconsequentially, but for the record, a handful of us CAF amateurs) all standing in opposition to you!



Presumably, you would like to view the “Hang on” scenario [Lose Hand + man dies] as equivalent to the Tubal Surgery [Lose Tube + baby dies] – both are crazy, eh? Alas, there is no equivalence, not even close!

In the Pregnancy case, there was no moral alternative to the surgery. The alternative you claim exists - that of securing the mum’s recovery by killing the baby is **not available **to us (remember the Pope’s statement in EVANGELIUM VITAE 57?). So instead, we pursue the best **available **option – which is to accept the physical evil of the tube removal as a means to the good end to save the mum. We acknowledge the baby dies as an unintended consequence.

As to the falling man scenario – we probably agree that there is no obligation on the ‘hero’ to persist with his rescue attempt *beyond the point of futility *– to hang on beyond reason. Nothing in the scenario suggests that letting go is a murder, and the act of letting go in the circumstances is a moral act. I believe we both agree on that.

[Assuming here that the ‘hero’ is not really a villain; he didn’t push anyone out the door did he? He didn’t manipulate the circumstances to cover a crime?? ]

Jaaanosik - Invoking this analogy only supports your case if you assume as a given that the metho treatment was morally available. Now as that is the very matter in debate – you are precluded from building an argument that assumes that very issue! So what was the point of introducing the analogy, if not to distract from the issue, and pursue another dead end??

Yes, the ‘hanging on’ scenario doesn’t constitute the voluntary and direct killing of another. It is possibly more akin to withdrawing life support or rejecting chemo in patients without hope of recovery.

The ectopic pregnancy scenario is more like the case of conjoined twins who share major organs where separation would mean the inevitable death of one child. The Church has consistently opposed sacrificing one twin so the other may live scenario because as with metho injection, that requires the direct involvement in the death. In fallopian tube removal the child is not touched or interfered with in any direct way.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The physical evil is necessary when no other superior option is morally available. You assert it is available - that has been your contention all along, despite logic, the Catechism, Evangelium Vitae and moral theologians galore (and, inconsequentially, but for the record, a handful of us CAF amateurs) all standing in opposition to you!



Presumably, you would like to view the “Hang on” scenario [Lose Hand + man dies] as equivalent to the Tubal Surgery [Lose Tube + baby dies] – both are crazy, eh? Alas, there is no equivalence, not even close!

In the Pregnancy case, there was no moral alternative to the surgery. The alternative you claim exists - that of securing the mum’s recovery by killing the baby is **not available **to us (remember the Pope’s statement in EVANGELIUM VITAE 57?). So instead, we pursue the best **available **option – which is to accept the physical evil of the tube removal as a means to the good end to save the mum. We acknowledge the baby dies as an unintended consequence.

As to the falling man scenario – we probably agree that there is no obligation on the ‘hero’ to persist with his rescue attempt *beyond the point of futility *– to hang on beyond reason. Nothing in the scenario suggests that letting go is a murder, and the act of letting go in the circumstances is a moral act. I believe we both agree on that.

[Assuming here that the ‘hero’ is not really a villain; he didn’t push anyone out the door did he? He didn’t manipulate the circumstances to cover a crime?? ]

Jaaanosik - Invoking this analogy only supports your case if you assume as a given that the metho treatment was morally available. Now as that is the very matter in debate – you are precluded from building an argument that assumes that very issue! So what was the point of introducing the analogy, if not to distract from the issue, and pursue another dead end??

This is how I see the moral analysis of saving of the mother - the mutilation is wrong when the other option is available.
Arguments that the other option is not available are:

• Evangelium Vitae - the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral… The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.
  … the injection is not voluntary or deliberate; it’s the same as letting go the person or amputation. The EV statement does not apply to this case.
• CCC 2271 - *… Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: *
  … the injection is not abortion; the circumstances do not fit the abortion, this is the same as the mutilation/amputation example. The amputation is a treatment in the mutilation/amputation scenario; the injection is a treatment in the abortion/injection scenario. The CCC does not apply to this case.
• the other option exists, even though it’s a physical evil.
  … the physical evil in a medical treatment can be morally justified only when it brings greater physical goodness; when this is not the case then the physical evil is a mutilation. The cutting of the tube does not bring any physical goodness to the baby. This is exactly like the letting go example! Loosing the hand does not bring any physical good. That’s why I brought it up, it’s not a dead end as you say.

That’s how I see it; the other option is available and if it’s not chosen then the tube cutting is a mutilation, an intrinsically evil act.
*One may not do evil so that good may result from it. *

Going back to the thread topic. Do you agree that there is no moral object without acting agent, circumstances, intentions, consequences, … ?
In other words the CCC 1756 is extremely confusing, putting it mildly.
The CCC 2263 describes the reality as it is.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is how I see the moral analysis of saving of the mother - the mutilation is wrong when the other option is available.
Arguments that the other option is not available are:

• Evangelium Vitae - the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral… The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.
  … the injection is not voluntary or deliberate; it’s the same as letting go the person or amputation. The EV statement does not apply to this case.
• CCC 2271 - *… Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: *
  … the injection is not abortion; the circumstances do not fit the abortion, this is the same as the mutilation/amputation example. The amputation is a treatment in the mutilation/amputation scenario; the injection is a treatment in the abortion/injection scenario. The CCC does not apply to this case.

What you are trying to do again, is make intention and volition (or will) the same thing. You are trying to say that the intention makes the act of will redundant. That the ***choice ***to directly and voluntarily attack the baby, exits the scenario completely because of the intention. You simply cannot do that. You are trying to make the baby the aggressor against the mother, which would be the only scenario for a self defensive action. In this scenario, the baby is the innocent. It has been failed by the body of the mother which it relies on to exist. That 'failure’ … the fallopian tube failure, needs to be addressed to save the mothers life. Nothing can justify the direct attack on the innocent baby in the scenario. The loss of the fallopian tube is a sad consequence, but it cannot warrant the direct killing of the innocent victim.

 

[Jaaanosik]

What you are trying to do again, is make intention and volition (or will) the same thing. You are trying to say that the intention makes the act of will redundant. That the ***choice ***to directly and voluntarily attack the baby, exits the scenario completely because of the intention. You simply cannot do that. You are trying to make the baby the aggressor against the mother, which would be the only scenario for a self defensive action. In this scenario, the baby is the innocent. It has been failed by the body of the mother which it relies on to exist. That 'failure’ … the fallopian tube failure, needs to be addressed to save the mothers life. Nothing can justify the direct attack on the innocent baby in the scenario. The loss of the fallopian tube is a sad consequence, but it cannot warrant the direct killing of the innocent victim.

I showed, why I don’t see it as the direct attack.
It appears to me the Church’s position creates a double standard.
We’ll agree to disagree on this issue, fair enough?

 

[LucyEm]

This is how I see the moral analysis of saving of the mother - the mutilation is wrong when the other option is available.
Arguments that the other option is not available are:

• Evangelium Vitae - the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral… The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.
  … the injection is not voluntary or deliberate; it’s the same as letting go the person or amputation. The EV statement does not apply to this case.
• CCC 2271 - *… Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: *
  … the injection is not abortion; the circumstances do not fit the abortion, this is the same as the mutilation/amputation example. The amputation is a treatment in the mutilation/amputation scenario; the injection is a treatment in the abortion/injection scenario. The CCC does not apply to this case.
• the other option exists, even though it’s a physical evil.
  … the physical evil in a medical treatment can be morally justified only when it brings greater physical goodness; when this is not the case then the physical evil is a mutilation. The cutting of the tube does not bring any physical goodness to the baby. This is exactly like the letting go example! Loosing the hand does not bring any physical good. That’s why I brought it up, it’s not a dead end as you say.

That’s how I see it; the other option is available and if it’s not chosen then the tube cutting is a mutilation, an intrinsically evil act.
*One may not do evil so that good may result from it. *

Going back to the thread topic. Do you agree that there is no moral object without acting agent, circumstances, intentions, consequences, … ?
In other words the CCC 1756 is extremely confusing, putting it mildly.
The CCC 2263 describes the reality as it is.

Jaaanosik - There’s is no Moral basis to argue that the choice of Metho is not deliberately and voluntarily chosen - it is not an accident, it is selected in discussion with an expert, chosen from among options. It is freely chosen as being “preferable” to loss (or damage) to a tube, and is directly chosen as a means to an end (save the mum). The moral evil involved in that means is explicit - and it is required if the purpose is to be served. The child needs to die for the mum to benefit. The child MUST DIE for there to be benefit.

Ceasing a rescue attempt when it cannot succeed is not the same morally as killing the patient. Exceptional means to preserve life are not obligatory. The death of the hanging man brings no benefit to the hero.

You next statement horrifies me. The “circumstances don’t fit abortion” The Act matches the definition of abortion (murder) exactly. What you are saying is that their are some ADDITIONAL circumstances present (ectopic pregnancy) and you are wanting to say that these additional circumstances change the act (the moral object). But this is exactly what the catechism says we may not do. The intrinsic evil of the Act cannot be erased by consideration of other circumstances. That is why it is called intrinsically evil.

You cannot view murder as only physical evil (like an amputation) - the “whole” of the baby is not comparable to the “part” of an amputated limb. Amutating the head is not a treatment for any ill. It is murder. The CCC rules out murder as a “treatment”.

The confusion you refer to was discussed, and I hope resolved, in my post #107. The definition of each Intrinsic Act builds in ALL the RELEVANT circumstances. The CCC is saying those acts can’t become “not” intrinsically evil due to other circumstances.

 

[Joe_Ca]

CCC 1756: It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

CCC 2263: The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

The most fundamental good of a person is existence/life. Killing is an evil act that violates that. These two paragraphs mention murder that is an intrinsically evil act. According to the CCC 1756 a morality of intrinsically evil acts is always wrong regardless of the intentions and circumstances.

The CCC 2263 says there are occasions when circumstances bring an agent into more complicated scenario when the double effect principle has to be explored. The intention of the agent changes how the morality of an act is being accessed.

How can we resolve this apparent conflict?

There is no conflict.

In a situation where an act is intrinsically immoral nothing, not intent, not circumstances, not a good end makes it a moral act.

In a situation where the act itself is morally neutral - firing a gun - it is the end intended which may render the act immoral - firing a gun at your father because he refused to buy you a new car.

Having said that, the same logic has to be applied to saving woman’s life during ectopic pregnancies. A surgery in order to save a woman is intended good moral object; embryo dying after removal from the tube is not intended, therefore this is not an abortion.

The act of removing the tube is morally neutral. If the intent is to treat an ectopic pregnancy, the death of the embryo is not directly willed, and therefore the removal is moral.

Well, let me quote some dictionaries.

That’s not helpful since the CCC in English translates Latin words with precise meanings. For example, as used in the CCC “intention” does not mean a “plan”.

What’s the mechanism that shifts the moral object of a murder to being the consequence in the self-defense.

It is only moral to will a defense against an attack, never to kill the attacker.

If I shoot a gun at the center of body mass of an attacker, I may or I may not kill the attacker. That is moral.

You’re confusing yourself by claiming the CCC excuses an intrinsically immoral act if it is done for a good end, which it actually very clearly condemns.

For example you write:

“Do you believe that killing the baby by cutting the tube is any different? Cutting the tube kills the baby and it does not improve a chance of the mother to have another baby. This harms her even more. So the cutting kills and harms. More evil than good.”

which posits situation ethics - the end justifies the means.

But the Church in the CCC you begin with makes clear that the ectopic surgery is moral not because the end justifies the means, but because the surgery itself is a morally neutral act, while an attack on the fetus to kill it is always intrinsically immoral.

You’re chasing your own tail due to imprecision in terms and misunderstanding of the entries in the CCC.

.

 

[LucyEm]

There is no conflict.

Yes, you are correct.

You’re confusing yourself by claiming the CCC excuses an intrinsically immoral act if it is done for a good end, which it actually very clearly condemns…

You’re chasing your own tail due to imprecision in terms and misunderstanding of the entries in the CCC.

Yes indeed. This thread should carry a health-warning!! Reading through it will leave you dizzy, as we return time and again to the same issue, but rather than confront it, we are asked to consider another analogy, but always coming back to the same central issue.

PS: Were you and I having a debate, I’d probably object a little to the way you nominated Acts in your post. Snippets of events (eg. “remove a tube”), a photograph of some “action” - these are not usually what we speak of as Acts in moral theology. But I’m totally nit-picking, and your essential points and conclusion are spot on.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik - There’s is no Moral basis to argue that the choice of Metho is not deliberately and voluntarily chosen - it is not an accident, it is selected in discussion with an expert, chosen from among options. It is freely chosen as being “preferable” to loss (or damage) to a tube, and is directly chosen as a means to an end (save the mum). The moral evil involved in that means is explicit - and it is required if the purpose is to be served. The child needs to die for the mum to benefit. The child MUST DIE for there to be benefit.

Ceasing a rescue attempt when it cannot succeed is not the same morally as killing the patient. Exceptional means to preserve life are not obligatory. The death of the hanging man brings no benefit to the hero.

You next statement horrifies me. The “circumstances don’t fit abortion” The Act matches the definition of abortion (murder) exactly. What you are saying is that their are some ADDITIONAL circumstances present (ectopic pregnancy) and you are wanting to say that these additional circumstances change the act (the moral object). But this is exactly what the catechism says we may not do. The intrinsic evil of the Act cannot be erased by consideration of other circumstances. That is why it is called intrinsically evil.

You cannot view murder as only physical evil (like an amputation) - the “whole” of the baby is not comparable to the “part” of an amputated limb. Amutating the head is not a treatment for any ill. It is murder. The CCC rules out murder as a “treatment”.

The confusion you refer to was discussed, and I hope resolved, in my post #107. The definition of each Intrinsic Act builds in ALL the RELEVANT circumstances. The CCC is saying those acts can’t become “not” intrinsically evil due to other circumstances.

A simple question.
Can a physical evil be morally justified if it does not bring any physical good?

 

[Jaaanosik]

There is no conflict.

In a situation where an act is intrinsically immoral nothing, not intent, not circumstances, not a good end makes it a moral act.

In a situation where the act itself is morally neutral - firing a gun - it is the end intended which may render the act immoral - firing a gun at your father because he refused to buy you a new car.

The act of removing the tube is morally neutral. If the intent is to treat an ectopic pregnancy, the death of the embryo is not directly willed, and therefore the removal is moral.

That’s not helpful since the CCC in English translates Latin words with precise meanings. For example, as used in the CCC “intention” does not mean a “plan”.

It is only moral to will a defense against an attack, never to kill the attacker.

If I shoot a gun at the center of body mass of an attacker, I may or I may not kill the attacker. That is moral.

You’re confusing yourself by claiming the CCC excuses an intrinsically immoral act if it is done for a good end, which it actually very clearly condemns.

For example you write:

“Do you believe that killing the baby by cutting the tube is any different? Cutting the tube kills the baby and it does not improve a chance of the mother to have another baby. This harms her even more. So the cutting kills and harms. More evil than good.”

which posits situation ethics - the end justifies the means.

But the Church in the CCC you begin with makes clear that the ectopic surgery is moral not because the end justifies the means, but because the surgery itself is a morally neutral act, while an attack on the fetus to kill it is always intrinsically immoral.

You’re chasing your own tail due to imprecision in terms and misunderstanding of the entries in the CCC.

.

Wrong!
The most fundamental good of a human nature/human being is existence/life.
The tube removal is physical evil against the existence/life. It violates the good of existence/life. This physical evil has to bring a physical good in order to be morally justified. If it does not bring any physical good then it’s immoral. The tube removal can be either moral or immoral but it cannot be morally neutral.
That’s the natural moral law.