That is not what I am saying at all. I said that ending an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. It should not even be part of the abortion argument. It has always been considered life-saving treatment and has never been prohibited or restricted.
But that has no bearing on whether abortion in the case of intra-uterine pregnancies is necessary. Those are the pregnancies that are meant by the author. You are trying to confuse the issue of abortion by including ectopic pregnancies.
ending an ectopic pregnancy is not considered an abortion. It should not even be part of the abortion argument. It has always been considered life-saving treatment and has never been prohibited or restricted.
Whether it's ever been restricted really doesn't have a bearing on the definition. And to muddy the waters further, the medical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion." The definition considers the process, not whether it's legal or illegal, moral or immoral, etc. From the online medical dictionary:
"The premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception of the embryo or of a nonviable foetus. ... The expulsion or removal of an embryo or foetus from the mother prematurely, can be done as an artificial procedure, but it often happens naturally when the mother's body expels the foetus because it has died, has genetic or developmental defects, or because of infection or illness in the mother."