If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.
Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.
I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.
With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.
If the threat of death is certain, it does not mean that death is. I meant it in a way that if it is certain there is a risk of death, the woman should be saved.
Though I believe catholics would want to try, when possible, to save the child as well, and would use abortion as a last resort. I have no problem with that, for as long as they do abortions when there is no option that would avoid it while not putting the life of a mother under significant risk.
I misread your comment, I now better understand what you were saying, and I apologize for being so hostile.
With that said, pregnancy inherently brings with it the threat of death. All pregnancies have a chance (and therefore threat) of death. So regulating them such that they must perform abortion services when there is a threat of death would be a regulation that would force them to abort 100% of requested pregnancies.
Yes. This is why I said “significant threat” in the previous comment.
Ok, now we’re back to arbitrary carvouts that lead to women dying of preventable issues, so I was right the first time.