I thought I’ve heard some ectopic pregnancies have survived, hence I wasn’t sure then if “abortions” of ectopic pregnancies are wrongful abortions or not, so I tried to do a little research.

Summary as I understand it: it’s ok to remove like a fallopian tube where the embryo indirectly dies, but not to directly remove an alive embryo (probably ok if it’s confirmed to not be alive?) or cause it to die with drugs.

The Catholic encyclopedia from the 1910s states, on the “abortion” entry:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life.

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended.

It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

That the immediate effect be good in itself;

That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;

That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian.

via Wikipedia (which I believe to be correct):

https://infogalactic.com/info/Catholic_Church_and_abortion

https://infogalactic.com/info/Principle_of_double_effect

Unintentional abortion

The principle of double effect is frequently cited in relation to abortion. A doctor who believes abortion is always morally wrong may nevertheless remove the uterus or fallopian tubes of a pregnant woman, knowing the procedure will cause the death of the embryo or fetus, in cases in which the woman is certain to die without the procedure (examples cited include aggressive uterinecancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is to save the woman’s life, not to terminate the pregnancy, and the death of the embryo or fetus is foreseen as a side effect, not intended even as a means to another end. That is, the death of the fetus is not the means to an end, but an undesirable but unavoidable consequence. Thus chemotherapy or removal of a cancerous organ does not abort the fetus in order to cure the cancer, but instead it cures the cancer while also having the foreseen indirect result of aborting the embryo or fetus.[43][44][45]

Ectopic pregnancy

An ectopic pregnancy is one of a few cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is allowed, since it is categorized as an indirect abortion. This view was also advocated by Pius XII in a 1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology.[46]

Using the Thomistic Principle of Totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the life of the person) and the Doctrine of Double Effect, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman’s life is directly threatened is the removal of the tube containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintended although foreseen.[47]

In Catholic theology, it is never permissible to evacuate the fetus using methotrexate or to incise the Fallopian tube to extract the fetus (salpingostomy), as these procedures are considered to be direct abortions.[48]

This came up as something for me to look in to as I’ve seen different views on the topic expressed by protestants I think.

Was also trying to find the “1953 address to the Italian Association of Urology” by Pius XII if anyone can find it (referenced on Wiki).