This is the first and last time I will partake in the abortion discussion. At a very premature stage the Dr. and I had a discussion. Short version: "We take the baby your wife might live. We don't take the baby, they both will die. You need to decide, tonight." To all you absolute, no exception types, live it before you preach it.
I believe doctors gave the same option to Tim Tehow’s mother.
Been there, done that. Made the right choice. You are not special.
My wife and I were in almost exactly the same position. That is an exception required by human decency. Where to draw the line is a different question, but there are times when that heartbreaking choice makes sense.
"Abortion" for the life of the mother was legal in all 50 states before Roe v. Wade. I put "abortion" in quotes in that sentence because the procedure you describe is not considered an abortion in medical terms. When a pregnancy becomes a threat to the mother's life the doctors will do everything they can to save both lives.
If the fetus is too young to save by any method then the medical battle for its life is already lost and the doctors won't waste time trying to do what they cannot do. That doesn't in any way imply that they made a moral or ethical decision to favor the mother's life over the baby's life. It's a simple recognition of the technical realities of medicine.
If the fetus is old enough to potentially save then the ethical dilemma is reduced to that of any triage situation. It is hoped that both patients can be saved but if time and technical abilities create limits that proscribe any reasonable chance of saving both patients then the one with the best chance of survival is the one they focus on. That would almost always be the mother.
Your emotional reaction precluded you from asking me if my view included "life of the mother" and it obstructed your mind from understanding that such an operation is not even considered and abortion in medical terms. In an abortion there is never any intention to save the baby. The very purpose of abortion in the first place is to kill the baby. The baby is never considered a patient in an abortion.
I know of no case of classic life-of-the-mother situations (cancer of the uterus or cervix, ectopic prgnancy, pregnant woman hemorrhaging because of traums ---e.g. car accident--- where it was ever morally or legally considered an "abortion" if therapeutic measures were taken to save the mother's life --- even if it was clearly understood that the unborn baby would die.
"Therapeutic measures" could include surgery, drugs, chemo, radiation, hysterectomy, very premature delivery with no practical expectation of the baby's viability.
I say this because even in places and at times when the law in theory prohibited abortion, such laws have never prohibited or penalized actual lifesaving intervention to prevent the mother's death.
If anyone knows of any such procedure was ruled out because of the "absolute" laws in any state at any time in U.S. history, let me know. I don't know of any. I think that legally, it's a non-issue.
This appears to be “the life of the mother” exception. You are putting up a straw dog.
NO ONE doesn’t accept “the life of the mother” exception. It’s when you add the word “health” to the equation that you lose people, because the left has defined “health” as being ANYTHING they want it to be, such as stress. Just “claim” stress and you meet the health exception.
Self-defense is the only legitimate justification for ending a pregnancy.
Those who exercise this option in this difficult situation should not be judged. And those who take the risk of continuing the pregnancy should not be judged.