Mark the words "right of another," at the end of the quotation. In a case of pregnancy at term in a woman with a contracted pelvis the foetus would be a contributing instrument of death to the mother, supposing there were no artificial means of delivering her, but such a child is not an aggressor even materially unjust. The child itself is normal, it has a natural right to be where it is, it did not put itself where it is; the mother's contracting uterus crushing the child against her narrow pelvic arch is the direct agency that kills the woman, and the child is only an inert instrument used by the contracting uterus. In such a case the mother might be considered an aggressor materially unjust against the life of the child rather than that the child is the aggressor. Lehmkuhl (_Compendium Theologiae Moralis_, 1891, p. 238) says: "Medicus graviter peccat ... si media abortus procurat: nisi quando ad salvandam matrem ex probabili opinione liceat." On page 188 he says: "Ex consulto abortum inducere, etiam liceri videtur in praesenti vitae {20} maternae discrimine, quod per solam foetus immaturi ejectionem avert! possit . . . Idque videtur applicari posse ad matrem quae tarn arcta est ut tempus praematuri partus exspectare non possit." By _foetus immaturus_ here he means an unviable foetus, as is evident from the context. If this probabilism of Father Lehmkuhl's stands (but it does not), a decision in most of the cases that occur in ectopic gestation would be easily made, but even he himself would not take responsibility in the matter, and that before the decision of the Holy Office which defined abortion. Since this decision, made July 24, 1895, Lehmkuhl has entirely withdrawn his opinion. On May 4, 1898, the Holy Office published the following decree, which was approved by the Pope: BEATISSIME PATER,--Episcopus Sinaloen. ad pedes S. V. provolutus, humiliter petit resolutionem insequentium dubiorum: I. Eritne licita partus acceleratio quoties ex mulieris arctitudine impossibilis evaderet foetus egressio suo naturali tempore? II. Et si mulieris arctitudo talis sit, ut neque partus prematurus possibilis censeatur, licebitne abortum provocare aut caesariam suo tempore perficere operationem? III. Estne licita laparotomia quando agitur de pregnatione extra-uterina, seu de ectopicis conceptibus? Feria iv, die 4 Mali, 1898. In Congregatione habita, etc . . . EE. ac RR. Patres rescribendum censuerunt: Ad I. Partus accelerationem per se illicitam non esse, duromodo perficiatur justis de causis et eo tempore ac modis, quibus ex ordinariis contingentibus matris et foetus vitae consulatur. Ad II. Quoad primam partem, _negative_, juxta decretum, Feria iv., 24 Julii, 1895, de abortus illiceitate.--Ad secundam vero quod spectat: nihil obstare quominus mulier de qua agitur caesareae operationi suo tempore subjiciatur.