Abortion to Save the Life of the Mother Not Medically Necessary?

It is almost a platitude that most laws against abortion will have exceptions “to save the life of the mother.” I wrote last week about how Wendy Davis defends abortion because she has to justify her own abortion(s?). This was odd because her real abortion was allegedly based on her baby’s severe defects. While I don’t think this justifies killing the child before birth any more than after birth, I don’t understand how Davis can use an abortion she justifies on certain reasons in order to justify the right to abort for no reason.


But one of her other strategies is to equate an ectopic pregnancy with an abortion. She has some kind of Texas record-keeping law on her side.

As I wrote,

Putting the ectopic pregnancy in the same class as the “euthanasia” abortion, Texas reporting law notwithstanding, is a disinformation move. Ectopic pregnancies are not removed to kill the baby so it won’t be born, but operations to save a mother’s life in the case of a baby that cannot be born.

It turns out that people with more expertise than me have recently met to consider the issues carefully. Life News reports, “Experts: Abortion Not Medically Necessary to Save the Life of a Mother.”

Leading medical experts speaking at a major International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare held in Dublin have concluded that “direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a mother.”

Professor Eamon O’Dwyer, speaking for the Committee of the Symposium, said that the outcome of the conference “provided clarity and confirmation to doctors and legislators.”

Experts in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, mental health, and molecular epidemiology presented new research, and shared clinical experiences on issues surrounding maternal healthcare to the packed Symposium attended by more than 140 Irish medical professionals.

Particular attention was paid to the management of high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality.

Reading the summary of their finding, I don’t think they were claiming that a pre-natal baby will never die in the process of saving the life of the mother. In fact, they affirmed that sometimes happens. But they were arguing that there is never a need to assault the child first as a precondition to treating the mother or even saving her life.

They summarize their findings:

  • As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion 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.

Of course, Ireland is an island of civilization afloat in a global raging sea of baby-killing barbarism. For that reason many of the barbarians will claim this symposium is “biased.”

Only vampires have enough objectivity to discuss the ethics of bleeding people to death—that’s the party line.