A) They received a suspended sentence which should tell you something.The judges found there was no common law defense of necessity to a charge of murder, either on the basis of legal precedent or the basis of ethics and morality, which is what you're arguing.
B) The effect of the suspended sentence was that the judge split the difference between "okaying murder in a necessity" and the state killing people for being forced to make a horrible choice.
C) Your "Take the baby out with the rest of the tissue and throw it in the trash and it's not an abortion because the Catholic church says so" position is untenable.
D) Pushing someone away from your raft because he's attracting sharks is quite different from killing and eating him. So your analogy doesn't even fit what I was saying.
Really, this is stupid hairsplitting on your part. And the end of the day the baby is dead and the mother is alive if everything goes right. Under normal circumstances both of us would agree that neither cutting the fetus out and throwing it in the trash nor pumping in chemicals with the intent of killing the fetus would be acceptable. And the original example that I gave, giving a mother chemotherapy which happens to kill the baby, is even less like abortion that what you find acceptable because the Catholic church told you so. Hell, under my example the baby could even have a fighting chance! Maybe it's really resilient to chemo? But no...no. Cut it out and throw it in the trash so you have the pope's blessing.
Edit: This is what I said earlier.