There’s something I’ve been wondering about. Does anyone have an example of a time when a late-term abortion saved a mother’s life? I’m just curious. That particular justification for abortion is tossed around all the time, and since I’ve never heard of an actual case where this happened, I’m just wondering if my readers have.
I’m wondering because, at the 28th week of pregnancy, for instance, the baby is around 15 inches long, and I’m just thinking that to induce labor at that point is really not going to be that easy on your body. So if a mother has some life-threatening condition, would it really be much better for her to have an induced labor (which is usually much less gradual and more taxing on the body than a naturally progressing labor) than to simply wait until the body is ready and deliver the baby normally?
I guess I’ve just been trying to figure out when there would be a situation where it was truly better for the mother. Have there been a lot of cases like this? Or is this just a straw_man that is set up to demonstrate how uncaring the right-to-life folks are?
And of course, it always begs the question: Do we really have the right to choose one life at the expense of another? Just because we happen to know the mother and do not yet know the child, does that make it a given that her life is more valuable than his? Might we be playing God by choosing to save the mother’s life and sacrifice the child, when in the natural course of things, the mother might have died so that the child would live? Could there ever possibly be a child who was worth sacrificing my life for?
(There. I’ve said it. I have never heard anyone say it before. It’s not easy to think about, but it really can’t be ignored.)