If you advocate for killing a prenatal child because they and they alone are in ‘serious’ danger, you are ‘pro-choice’. That child should receive prenatal treatment, to include surgery, to save them. If you, like me, see no difference between a child cradled in their mother’s womb and a child cradled in their mother’s arms, you could never support killing them in the womb because they are in danger. Would you support killing a toddler who is in serious danger or would you champion for all that could be done to save them?
In terms of the mother, it depends on your definition of ‘serious’. If emotional distress meets your definition, then you are ‘pro-choice’. If, like me, you define serious as the absolute impending death of the mother, then you are pro-life.
Ectopic pregnancy is a good example of serious danger. If left untreated, an ectopic pregnancy will almost always result in the death of both the child and their mother. It is illogical for both to die when one could live.
It is important to note that saving the life of the mother in cases of certain death IS NOT ABORTION. Doctors should do everything they can to save them both, but in many cases the unborn child is not viable without their mother’s life support and are tragically lost. Induced abortion is the elective and INTENTIONAL KILLING of a prenatal child. There’s a huge difference between the two.
I have no idea where this places me, but I think abortion is only okay if the mother and child are, or just the child is in serious danger. Does this make me pro-life or pro-choice? Also, is this a justifiable reason for abortion? Sorry about the questions and sorry if they seem stupid or offensive.
