Pro-choicers are triumphantly holding up the papers of a recent study that shows that more women have been dying from childbirth in the United States--higher than they have been in decades.
Pro-choicers now think that somehow they have more ammo in their quest to slaughter the unborn. Firstly, they assume that, in the 13 out of 100,000 cases of pregnancy that end in the death of the mother in the United States (an extremely low number, by the way, compared to 679 out of every 100,000 births 90 years ago, according to the study), getting an abortion will automatically save the mother's life.
But this isn't always the case. For women with health problems during the pregnancy, it is often too late by the time they realize their life is in danger to get an abortion that actually would save their life. This is why many doctors say that abortion is never necessary to save the woman's life. Some doctors don't believe that however, suggest that the woman get an abortion, and months later have a perfectly healthy mother and baby because she refuses. So just because your doctor is willing to abort your baby doesn't mean that you will die if you don't. Second opinions, people.
Pro-choicers are also ignoring the fact that the study shows the reasons more women have been dying from childbirth is because of obesity during pregnancy and a rise in hysterical C-Sections by parents who think their child will have cerebral palsy by having a vaginal birth. (Thanks John Edwards!) They aren't always dying from pregnancy complications caused by the baby and, again, these complications, if even known by the time childbirth arises, cannot always be cured by an abortion.
Let's give the pro-choicers the benefit of the doubt and grant that 10 women out of 100,000 do not fall into the obesity/C-section catagory. Let's also give them the benefit of the doubt that, perhaps, 7 of the women will have to have an abortion in order to save their life.
So what? What pro-lifer (or, more importantly, what piece of pro-life legislation) says that a woman must be forced to die for her child? If someone wants to be delusional and believe that women are dying in droves because of their birthing experiences and pregnancy health problems--all of which could have been prevented by an abortion!--fine. Go ahead and believe it. We'll gladly write in (and have been writing in) your life-of-the-mother exceptions in virtually every piece of legislation.
But pro-choicers hate the word "life" in terms of discussing the woman. They want to frame any "danger" of the women in terms of "health". "Health", according to them, means not having enough money to care for a child or making their boyfriends mad. (See Doe vs. Bolton.)
But any normal person, when they hear a pro-choice advocate sneakily say, "Abortion is needed in cases of the health of the mother being in jeopardy," automatically processes "life" in place of "health" in their minds, so the pro-choicers sound reasonable until you actually pick apart what they are saying. "Oh, health, not life." Then you find out what they even mean by "health" and you simply think they are insane psychopaths.
So congratulations pro-choicers: you have a study showing a slight increase of women dying in childbirth. What does it add to the debate about aborting children? Absolutely nothing.
