[socialismisinsidious]

Although I don't agree with your "after the first trimester" reasoning(I don't think that it is okay to kill someone during the first trimester) that is not what caught my eye about your post.

I have been begging anyone to answer this question: Under what medical circumstances would the unborn baby need to be killed (torn apart really) in order for the mother to avoid "imminent physical harm"?You see, even if the baby would need to be born so early that it would likely die (say the mother has cancer and she is only 18 weeks pregnant) the baby doesn't have to be murdered before being born in order for the mother to live.....and I can't think of a single case in which this would be necessary. Can you?

[RobFromGa]

I don't know if there is a situation in which the baby would have to be sacrificed to save the mother's life, unless it were an either/or case with limited medical care available. If it was believed that carrying the baby to term would somehow kill the mother, then a decision to perform a C-section and attempt to save the baby should be the result.

[Shery]

Technically, there are no substantive cases, even for the mother's life. The baby can be born via C-section without general anesthesia and also without pain to the mother. Even for the mother with heart disease, they put them in bed and keep them off their feet until they come to the point that the child is fully viable. Rape, nor incest, is any reason for abortion as there are other ways to deal with this. While I would be more lenient with these cases, these children can be given up for adoption and the adoptive parents pay all expenses for the pre-natal care. This is the usual, anyway. Just over 1% of all abortions are performed for rape, incest, or mother's life being threatened. So, this is not a big factor. It has become the most convenient form of birth control available.