I know I'm gonna get flamed relentlessly (by some,at least) for this but...here goes:
Abortion as a form of birth control,as I'll wager constitute at least 99% of this country's abortions...is perhaps the most despicable crime (and sin) that one can commit against humanity.However,I,never having attended medical school,cannot be certain that there are not some *medical* conditions (as opposed to *psychiatric* conditions) that demand nothing less than an abortion to save the very life of the mother.I think that only qualified physicians can have *any* credibility on that particular question.If,by chance,such conditions *do* exist I'd be inclined to at least consider supporting abortions in those *very limited* circumstances.Of course I'd listen very carefully to arguments made by those who *oppose* abortions in such situations as well.
I remember reading an article by a prolife doctor who very bluntly stated “There is no medical condition threatening the life of the mother that needs to result in a dead child.”
Granted, he was discussing late term partial birth abortion and why the excuse of the “life of the mother” is invalid.
It certainly sounds to me like she died of sepsys and an abortion would not have cured that.
I'm in the same boat as you. Philosophically, I frame this as follows:
Suppose a mother had a 17 year old son who was truly criminally insane, such that he could not differentiate right from wrong, and was not in control of his faculties. If in his derangement, he posed a direct and immediate threat to his mother's life, I don't think there is a FReeper or conservative in general who would argue against the woman's right to employ lethal force in defense of her life. It would be sad, tragic and regrettable, but it would not, IMHO, be immoral.
That hypothetical leads me to conclude that similarly, if an unborn child (who is every bit as much a viable human being as the 17 year old child) posed a direct and immediate, albeit entirely unwitting, threat to the life of the mother, then the same self-defense argument would apply, although make no mistake about it, abortion is lethal force.
Having said that, my untrained medical mind can simply not perceive of a situation in which wrenching an unborn child from a mother's uterus, or pumping her so full of saline that the child dies and needs to be chopped up and extracted, would ever contribute to the health of the mother. I suspect in most cases, particularly late in term, a C-Section or induced labor would be a much less traumatic procedure, and while the child might die as a result, the procedure itself would have been performed with the intent of doing everything possible to preserve two lives.
There was a Congressman who was a practicing OB/GYN. On the floor of the House he stated in 20 yrs of practice he had never seen a case where the only option was to abort the baby.
I supposed its possible. The baby is a person and as such deserves the protection each of us have.