When Human Life Begins
OB-GYN docs call bans on a******n devastating for women's health. Any a******n is an essential a******n to the person who needs it, and every person should be able to access the medical care needed when they need it, including a******n care. Maternal mortality (US ranks worst among 10 other developed nations) is going to be more common because of this law. We should be more concerned about the life of the mother than the life of the unborn.
American College of Pediatricians – March 2017ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that corroborates that a unique human life starts when the sperm and egg bind to each other in a process of fusion of their respective membranes and a single hybrid cell called a zygote, or one-cell embryo, is created.
As physicians dedicated both to scientific t***h and to the Hippocratic tradition, the College values all human lives equally from the moment of conception (fertilization) until natural death. Consistent with its mission to “enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being,” the College, therefore, opposes active measures that would prematurely end the life of any child at any stage of development from conception to natural death.The unborn is a human being: What science tells us about unborn childrenBefore we can know how to treat unborn children (an ethical question), we must know what they are biologically.
This is a question of science.
Here's what science tells us about the unborn.
When a sperm successfully fertilizes an oocyte (egg), a new cell, called a zygote, is generated by their union. The zygote represents the first stage in the life of a human being. This individual, if all goes well, develops through the embryonic (first eight weeks) and fetal (eight weeks until birth) periods and then through infancy, childhood, and adolescence before reaching adulthood.
Four characteristics of the unborn human (the zygote, embryo, or fetus) are important:
Distinct. The unborn has a DNA and body distinct from her mother and father. She develops her own arms, legs, brain, nervous system, heart, and so forth.
Living. The unborn meets the biological criteria for life. She grows by reproducing cells. She turns nutrients into energy through metabolism. And she can respond to stimuli.
Human. The unborn has a human genetic signature. She is also the offspring of human parents, and humans can only beget other humans.
Organism. The unborn is an organism (rather than a mere organ or tissue)—an individual whose parts work together for the good of the whole. Guided by a complete genetic code (46 c********es), she needs only the proper environment and nutrition to develop herself through the different stages of life as a member of the species.
These facts about the unborn are established by the science of embryology and developmental biology. They are confirmed by embryology texts, scientific journals, and other relevant authorities.Princeton University, A******n Fact #8
It is an extremely rare case when a******n is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, a******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.
Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” a******ns.
While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify a******n in general was a “smoke screen.”
Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged:"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, a******n would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life."
To repeat, the person making the quote is Dr Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood.
So, yes, Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood, says that a******n k**ls, and now, just for the record again, we have Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledging that it is an extremely rare case that a******n is necessary to save the mother’s life (and he even goes so far as to say that a******n would be unlikely to prolong the mother’s life even in these every extreme cases).
Dr. Landrum Shettles says,"Less than 1 percent of all a******ns are performed to save the mother’s life."When two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life.
If the mother has a fast-spreading uterine cancer, the surgery to remove the cancer may result in the loss of the child’s life. In an ectopic pregnancy the child is developing outside the uterus. He has no hope of survival, and may have to be removed to save his mother’s life.
These are tragic situations, but even if one life must be lost, the life that can be saved should be. More often than not, that life is the mother’s, not the child’s. There are rare cases in later stages of pregnancy when the mother can’t be saved, but the baby can.
Again, one life saved is better than two lost.A******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.
The mother’s life and the mother’s health are usually two distinct considerations. A woman with toxemia will have adverse health reactions and considerable inconvenience, including probably needing to lie down for much of her pregnancy. This is a difficulty, but not normally a threat to her life. Hence, an a******n for the sake of “health” would not be lifesaving, but life-taking, since her life is not in jeopardy in the first place.
There are other situations where an expectant mother has a serious or even terminal medical condition. Her pregnancy may cause complications, but will not cause her death. If she is receiving radiation therapy, she may be told that the child could have handicaps as a result. It may be possible to postpone or reduce such treatment, but if it is essential to continue the treatment to save the mother’s life, this is preferable to allowing her death or k*****g the child.
Efforts can and should be made that value the lives of both mother and child.A******n to save the mother’s life was legal before convenience a******n was legalized and would continue to be if a******n were made illegal again.
Even under restrictive a******n laws, the mother’s right to life is never disregarded. Contrary to what some pro-choice advocates have said, there is no danger whatsoever that women whose lives are in jeopardy will be unable to get treatment, even if such treatment tragically results in the death of an unborn child.
Even pro-choice USA Today acknowledges:"he National Right to Life Committee consistently has maintained that while a******n should be banned, there should be exceptions if an a******n is needed to save a woman’s life."The vast majority of a******ns are elective.
Are there rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother? Yes. As mentioned above, these rare cases occur less than 1% of the time. In fact, even if you lump in all NON life threatening health issues that are cited by mothers as a reason for a******n then the total number only increases to 2.8%. 
Are the overwhelming majority of a******ns performed on an elective basis? Yes. The most common reasons for having an a******n provided directly by women are all financial and convenience related. 
When the mother’s life is at stake then the Doctors should do all they can to save both the life of the baby and the life of the mother. If they can only save one life, then they should save that life.
Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being then it is is grossly misleading and morally abhorrent to say that because there are some rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother that therefore a******n on demand for any reason whatsoever should be legal.
It is an extremely rare case when a******n is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, a******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue. Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” a******ns.