The Catholic Church allows these practices (homework: research the Catholic concept known as the principle of double-effect), but never the direct termination of the unborn child.įor more information on saving the life of the mother without resorting to the direct murder of her child, check out this statement from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists: There are procedures that are not abortions, such as pre-term delivery, that result in the pre-term separation of the fetus from the mother and thus the unintended death of the child. The fact is that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother, and pro-lifers should never concede this assumption. The truth is that most abortions in America have nothing to do with the health of the mother.

The highest estimates for “health of the mother” as a reason for the abortion are at 12% – but that number includes concerns as wildly divergent as cancer diagnoses, morning sickness, and fetal diagnoses. In one Guttmacher study, only 3% of women sought abortion because of a concern for their own health. How do we know that? Because Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, concluded as much. It’s true that Roe itself placed “medical necessity” at the center of its argument, allowing first-trimester abortions without restriction but making second- and third-trimester abortions contingent on proven threats to the mother’s health.īut today we know only a small percentage of abortions occur because of concerns for the mother’s health. Wade is saving lives because most abortions are about the health of the woman. Pro-abortion rhetoric tries to make you think Roe vs. In other words, abortion is medically necessary in many cases to save the life of the mother. “Staying pregnant is more dangerous than having an abortion,” claims sociologist Amanda Stevenson in a recent USA Today article.

Im pro opera and i vote