In most cases, an “abortion” that is genuinely “to save the life of the mother” is not an abortion at all, but the unintended consequence of a legitimate health procedure.
Thus, with a tubal pregnancy, to take one instance, there is no chance that the child would survive in any case, and the operation is intended to save the mother’s life.
To take another instance, an abortion caused by chemotherapy to save the mother from breast cancer, this is also an unintended side effect. Several heroic mothers have died so their babies could be born, but no one could legitimately require it of them. This was their own heroic decision, freely taken.
And keep in mind that these poll numbers are taken in a world where maybe 95% of the media and entertainment industry and academia propagandize in favor of abortion, and where the mainline churches and even some priests say it is OK. In a normal world, far fewer would favor it.
I really wish that the Republican Party pros understood this. President Bush seems to, but many of his closest advisers and colleagues do not, and he has sometimes permitted them to run political campaigns on that basis. They have not succeeded in swaying him personally, but he has allowed them to spend RNC money and to campaign for RINOs and pro-aborts, even though it has damaged the party as well as violated his beliefs.
It was one reason for the poor results in the 2006 elections.
Thank you for saying an “abortion” for the purpose of saving the life of the mother isn’t really an abortion. It’s an interruption of the preganancy. Even we we have to intervene, we can, in many cases, save the baby too.