And it appears that the two sources differ on whether ending an ectopic pregnancy is an "abortion". The first defines an abortion as an action taken with the intent of ending a pregnancy that could be successfully brought to term, which isn't the case for ectopic pregnancies. The second link's definition of abortion includes any action that results in the termination of the pregnancy, which would include dealing with an ectopic pregnancy.
I don't think any of those terms are correct. I would say any action that has as the primary object to cause a miscarriage is an abortion. Its wider than the first and narrower than the second. Ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Giving a woman chemotherapy for Leukemia and she miscarries as a result is not an abortion.
I sort of agree, except that "primary object" is going to be inherently defined subjectively. Take for example the case where a woman determines that she can't bear the economic and/or psychological cost involved in carrying to term. Does that mean that inducing a miscarriage was or was not her primary object? For obvious reasons, both sides are trying to come up with a completely objective definition of abortion, albeit they choose the objective definition subjectively.