"Who told you that?" "- The internet."

alittlecaseofhistoryrepeating:

mediumtrip:

alittlecaseofhistoryrepeating:

mediumtrip:

standingfast:

alittlecaseofhistoryrepeating replied to your post:mediumtrip reblogged your post:…

No. Support of abortion used only to save the mother’s life =/= pro-choice. If that’s really the hill you want to die on, go ahead, but the logic is severely flawed.

mediumtrip? :P

-Jo

You’re right. But what about the situation where the mother would die, but the fetus wouldn’t? Wouldn’t that still be supporting abortion to save the mother’s life?

So instead of both mother and child perishing, we’re speaking about the situation in which the mother would perish, yet her child survive?

In that instance (along with the prior situation discussed) the mother does have a decision to make of whether or not her life should be spared at the expense of the fetus.

However, that hardly makes one pro-choice be it “deep down” or not.

In many cases with abortions, the mother’s life is not at risk(aside from the average pregnancy risks). So the comparison of a mother who may wish to sacrifice her life for her infant’s (or deciding her being alive is more beneficial) to being pro-choice is really a stretch.

In case my syntax was hard to understand(my writing skills are lackluster today):
The mother’s life is typically valued over her unborn child if it is distinctively threatened by the fetus. In that situation, the mother has the right to decide whether or not she wishes to sacrifice her own life for her child. This instance isn’t being pro-choice deep-down. It’s legitimately a matter of life and death on the part of the mother. To be pro-choice is to find the mother’s life above the fetus in any situation, be it inconvenience or whatnot.

Once again, I apologize for my rough syntax.

Why is the mother*’s life “typically” valued? The pro-life side advocates that every pregnancy should be carried to term regardless of the pregnant person’s circumstances, except when the pregnant person would die and the fetus along with them, because killing an embryo/fetus is unacceptable. So in a situation like I described, where the fetus would survive, why is it okay to kill it?

Are you lumping all pro-life advocates together? The majority of pro-lifers are against abortion unless it is to save the mother’s life. A good portion of pro-lifers are okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest as well.

If a woman’s chance at dying from her pregnancy is unavoidable(let’s say, for all intents and purposes: 90%. Which is extreme and VERY rarely happens) except through abortion, the chance her fetus would survive the pregnancy is also ridiculously low. After all, immune system, oxygen, nourishment etc, is shared with the mother. So when her child, for whatever reason, is threatening her life, he/she is also threatening his/her own. There’s really never been an instance I have heard of that the fetus had a higher chance of life than the mother(aside from women with cancer and leukemia). Therefore, it’s safe to say that if that is the case, we go with saving the life of the mother because if her chance at perishing from the pregnancy that can be ended is far too great.

Modern science has allowed us to remove a harmful fetus with relative safety and should be used in that instance.

Likelihood of mother dying from abortion: Minuscule(I couldn’t find a percentage anywhere online, not any that looked viable.) As for the fetus: 100%.
Likelihood of mother dying from the pregnancy: 90% As for the fetus: approx. 100%
Those are the hypothetical stat’s we’re looking at, therefore it’s clear that the mother’s life is more valuable than the fetus.

With that long-winded rant you entirely avoided my question. In a situation, no matter how hypothetical, where carrying the pregnancy to term would kill the mother but not the fetus, why is abortion ok?

PS. Being against abortion but allowing exceptions for rape and incest makes no sense and only serves to demonstrate how “pro-life” is indeed just “pro-punishing women for sex”.