You don't seem to be listening to me; my friend's daughter's baby was POISONING her; she was going to die if they did not abort the baby.
Now, I will ask you this for all to see: would you have let the daughter die rather than aborting that baby?
I'm a student midwife, direct entry. How was the baby poisoning your friend's daughter? Rh incompatability? What? Did the doctors on the scene give you the name of the malady? I'd like to research it, if you remember. That is not something I have come across in my studies.
My friend has two children, born at 31 and 32 weeks by induction - but not abortion - due to toxemia of pregnancy.
If a mother must have therapy for cancer such as chemo or radiation, I'm not quite sure that an abortion is necessary past the first trimester. If the mother is at risk of kidney disease or bleeding, then, perhaps an abortion in the first half of pregnancy or an induction in the last half. The effects and stress - the actual stuff she goes through is the same. But, the need for an intentional death of the child is very, very rare.
I can't imagine a reason for an abortion rather than induction, unless the prejudice is that the child should be killed for some reason. That prejudice is common in the medical field, so you often hear of abortions due to a "fetal anomaly not compatible with life." That translates into the wish for a dead child.