“The amount of oxygen a baby gets is much different than the amount of oxygen we get out here in the environment,” Byrne told LSN. He said the blood supply to the baby is venous blood, which has already had most of the oxygen consumed by the mother’s body anyway. “The baby’s body is used to living with a lower oxygen content. The baby is protected by the uterus more than the mother’s brain is protected, or the liver is protected, or the heart is protected [from lack of oxygen].”
In one paragraph this doctor contradicts everything you said. Go back to your fellow pro-aborts. You're all alike.
Where did you get that I was pro-abort? I took the *hospital’s* position. The hospital is trying to save the baby; it’s the husband who wants to unplug the wife and by extension kill the baby. Yes, the baby gets less oxygen than the mother overall, but the mother’s body will do everything it can to preserve the fetus short of killing itself (and it’ll get damn close to that). In extremis, the baby’s oxygen supply is likely to take precedence over the mother’s. That paragraph not only doesn’t contradict any of my points, it *supports* everything I said.
If you won’t actually read my post, at least don’t misrepresent it.
To clarify, the *only* mention I made of abortion is with reference to a spontaneous abortion by the mother’s body in the event of severe crisis i.e. utter starvation or massive trauma/injury. And, my mention was as a contrast, since whatever happened to this woman obviously does not fall into that category; in any other circumstance except as a last resort by the body to preserve itself, a woman’s body will do just about everything to ensure that the fetus it carries stays viable.
And, to clarify further, my point (which you obviously missed) was that the hospital was right to keep the mother on life support, because there’s a very good chance that the baby is still ok.