The Life of the Mother Myth

The recent laws passed in places like Alabama to curb abortion are to be celebrated from the rooftops. We are quite possibly going to see Roe vs Wade overturned relatively soon.

The only problem with these laws is that they make exceptions for the “life of the mother.” This is unfortunate. Why? Because there is no such thing as an abortion performed to save the life of the mother. Abortion is, in other words, never medically necessary. You heard me: never.

To clarify this, and to clarify the abortion debate in general, let’s explore the three kinds of procedures that may terminate a pregnancy, and how they do that.

First, an abortion always terminates a pregnancy. Let’s examine the definition of an abortion: a medical procedure that intentionally and deliberately terminates the life of an unborn child. Let’s put this another way: the purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby. It can’t be any more clear than that. Once in a while, a baby is born alive after an attempted abortion. When this happens, we call it a “failed abortion.” Why? Because the abortion failed to kill the baby. This is further confirmation that the purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby.

The second class of medical procedure that may terminate a pregnancy is one that treats the mother for a life-threatening disease or injury. It’s possible that a procedure of this nature will inadvertently result in the death of the fetus, thus terminating the pregnancy.

What is the difference between the second kind of procedure and an abortion? The difference is in purpose and intent. The purpose of an abortion is to kill the baby. The purpose of a procedure that may inadvertently kill the baby is to treat a specific condition the mother has. Procedures that fall into the second class are not abortions. Why? Because their sole purpose was not to kill the baby, which is what an abortion is. Their purpose was to rectify a dangerous condition the mother had that may not even have been a result of the pregnancy. But even if the condition was a result of the pregnancy, the procedure to treat that condition is not designed to kill the baby, even though it may inadvertently do so. Again, this kind of procedure is not an abortion.

The third category of procedures that are designed to terminate a pregnancy is a delivery. A delivery is defined as a procedure that removes the baby from the mother’s body. The purpose and intent of a delivery is, therefore, you guessed it: to remove the baby from the mother’s body. Sometimes, as we all know, doctors may induce labor or deliver the baby without inducing labor (e.g. a C-section) before it comes to term for some extraordinary condition or event. And sometimes, as we all know, that delivery may be dangerous, and in rare cases the infant may not survive. If the infant doesn’t survive, an abortion has not taken place. What took place was a delivery that inadvertently resulted in the death of the infant. In other words, a delivery is never an abortion.

In the final analysis, we can say with absolute certainty that an abortion is never medically necessary, even though a procedure that is medically necessary may tragically result in the death of the infant. The latter is not an abortion. Since an abortion is never medically necessary, it is incoherent and misguided to include exceptions in anti-abortion legislation to “save the life of the mother.” No abortion has ever been necessary to save the life of a mother. A mother’s life may have been saved by a procedure that inadvertently destroyed the fetus, but that procedure was not an abortion. And if an abortion did ostensibly save the life of a pregnant woman, we could argue from a sound medical perspective that it was a misguided decision, and that another procedure should have been performed instead that was designed to directly treat the problem even if it may have resulted in the death of the fetus.

But don’t take my word for it. Over a thousand OB-GYNs and maternal healthcare experts have confirmed this in the Dublin Declaration:

“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion—the purposeful destruction of the unborn child—is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

If we accept the faulty premise that an abortion may be necessary to save the life of a mother, it is conceivable that unscrupulous doctors may leverage these exceptions as loop-holes, thereby nullifying the effectiveness of the anti-abortion laws. I predict that once these laws take effect, there will be a sudden increase in cases where a pregnancy supposedly threatens the life of the mother. This will be scientifically inexplicable, but politically inevitable.

The best and most effective anti-abortion law is one that states that abortion is a criminal act with no exceptions at all. Pro-life politicians need to be responsible in this regard, and need to wisely avoid giving the pro-murder agenda a foothold in our legal system. That happened in 1973, and it should never be allowed to happen again.