That also highlights the big lie pushed by abortion/infanticide supporters -
You see - one caveat given for at least allowing abortion in “some” cases is the life of the mother. Yet when one actually does real investigation, we can find that the actual risk to mothers of having a baby are far less than the risk of driving to the grocery store. Furthermore, with any sort of pre-natal medical care, the risks are dropped even further - to a level that can nearly be described as statistically inconsequential.
But you see - pregnancy can cause swollen ankles and feet, headaches, moodiness, back pain, frequent urination, and so many other “symptoms” that affect a woman’s so-called “quality of life” that those get lumped in with “protecting the life of the mother”. Its all part of the fraud.
Win the white house, win the senate and hope Ginsburg retires.
Then change everything and tell the RATS to piss off.
My understanding is that if there’s ever any risk to the life of the mother, it’s almost always in the later stages of the pregnancy. I don’t know of any early pregnancy issues that endanger the life of the mother that warrant an abortion.
In the later stages where there can be possible risk to the mother’s life, like in preeclampsia, the baby can be safely delivered prematurely and cared for in NICU. Abortion is just not justified in those cases because after 22 weeks at the very earliest, the baby is likely to survive and the older, the better the chances.
So, the *life of the mother* argument really has no merit.