It’s popular among some to say that abortion is never (NEVER they say in all caps) necessary to save the life of the mother. That isn’t true. The below linked article gives one very good example of that. A case where a woman is carrying twins and one of the twins has died inside of her but the other twin has not.
“Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and “my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute,” she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. ”
According to the Mayo Clinic, “Pre-eclampsia can often be managed with oral or IV medications until the baby is sufficiently mature to be delivered. This often requires weighing the risks of early delivery versus the risks of continued pre-eclampsia symptoms.” In the case of the woman from the article this wasn’t an option. The woman in the article says, “I fought it. But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son.” Of course the NEVER-ers will say that it wasn’t necessary that there HAD to be another way.
Clearly, if you have been following this page for even a short time, you know I am against abortion. I believe that what is in side the woman is a human life and as such as the right to that life. However, I believe that when a person’s life is in danger from another then that person has the right to defend themselves against the dangerous actions. Defense is a right. I’m against abortion to be sure, but if it can save a woman’s life, then it should be legal in that case. If, as some say, it is never needed for that then there should be no issues in leaving that a legal option. After all, it will NEVER be used so why concern yourself about it?
It’s ALL or NOTHING
This is the other fallacy that is brought up by some, that if must either be 100% against abortion or you are a hypocrite. Either you are 100% pro-life or you are being hypocritical. Of course that is a logical fallacy and also not a very well thought out position.
As tragic as it is, sometimes life must be taken in the defense of life. That’s one reason the 2nd amendment exists. There is no hypocrisy to say you believe in the sanctity of life and that you also believe in killing in self-defense. I believe that a woman like the one in the story above would be dead if she had not taken the action that she did. Of course there are cases where the same thing happened and the woman was able to deliver one healthy twin and the dead one. It’s tempting to point to such a case and say, “see! NEVER necessary!” but we really can’t say that with honest certitude. Each case is different. Each woman different. When it happens and the size of the dead twin matters. Because it sometimes might maybe could be necessary to save the mother it just seems reasonable that she should be able to have that as a medical procedure.
I reject any notion that this somehow makes me pro-abortion or not pro-life. To work so hard to keep something that will never happen illegal just makes no sense to me. On the contrary, not being all-in on something is very often the right way to be.