There are two competing accounts for a theory for human action proposed by Catholic theologians working within the received moral tradition today: a hylomorphic account and an intentional account. In this article, the author compares each of the rival theories for its ability to explain both the structure and morality of the human acts surrounding the elective termination of the pregnancy of a woman with pulmonary arterial hypertension. This scenario of PAH is a superb test case to compare the explanatory power of the two rival action theories. The author's analysis reveals that the hylomorphic account is the superior account, which can explain better not only the normative conclusions of the Catholic moral tradition but also our lived experience as acting persons in a world governed by cause-and-effect relationships.