Welcome to the Pro-Life America podcast!
*Theme Music*
Sarah: So we have a show suggestion 
here from one of our listeners.
Tom sent in this message, he says: "Hi,
big fan of your podcast... Thank you 
so much Tom! We love to hear that!
And he says, "maybe you can talk
about ethical ways to respond to
life-threatening pregnancies. Thank you."
Mark: This, like I said, 
relates to our little open there,
"no compromise, no exception, no apology."
And this is the most difficult issue that comes up.
They say, well, "a woman has got a 
condition that would cause her to die."
"Are you going to say she has to die in order 
to preserve the life of the unborn child?"
Several things need to be 
brought up here. First off,
the number of situations that occur
today, with modern medicine,
in which a woman's pregnancy 
threatens her life are very close to zero.
Sarah: Yeah, they're very small.
Mark: Very rare.
And furthermore, there is no condition 
that a woman can suffer from
that she's cured by having an abortion.
Abortion doesn't cure anything.
It's not a treatment for anything.
But the pro-aborts will twist this 
around to make it look like
90% of the women who have 
abortions are having them
because they were either raped, 
or they were the victim of incest,
or the pregnancy threatens their life.
And the reality is that most studies show 
somewhere between one and three percent
of all abortions occur as a 
result of ALL of those things.
Not not just any individual 
one - but all of them.
Sarah: Well, they use these extreme
cases, this little small window of cases,
the two percent... 
Mark: Right...
Sarah: ...to try to justify and open 
the door for the other 95- 97% of them.
Because they know that there's no really 
good argument or justification for those.
So all they have is extreme cases.
Mark: Right.
First off, before we go further on
that score, let's talk about the possibility
that yeah, okay, we've got 
this extraordinarily rare case
that the pregnancy is causing 
a threat to the woman's life.
Our position is not that...
And this is something the pro-aborts 
have always tried to paint us...
They will say, "well, you're saying that the baby's 
life is more important than the mother's life."
That's not our position.
Sarah: No. Our position is that they are both equal.
Mark: They're equal.
And in this extraordinarily rare 
case, if it ever does come up,
and i've had board certified OB-GYNs 
tell me that this never occurs -
but let's just say that it did.
Then what's the solution to that?
And the solution is that the 
doctor should be allowed
to do anything that's necessary 
to save the woman's life -
but he must also attempt to save the
baby's life. The life of both of them is equal.
If, in the process of saving one 
of their lives the other one dies,
that has to be seen as a 
regrettable, but lawful, outcome.
But the fact is, it almost never happens.
And if, in those one in a trillion 
cases that it might happen,
again the physician should be 
allowed to do anything necessary
to save the life of both of them.
Sarah: Exactly.
Mark: But under no conditions, 
and this is the important thing,
under no conditions should he 
be taking any type of action,
medical procedure, or whatever, whose intent 
is to take the life of one or the other of them.
Sarah: Exactly.
Mark: The issue here is what does he intend to happen.
And the intent must always 
be to save both of them.
Sarah: Well, the intent of medicine 
should always be to help, to cure, to treat.
Mark: Right.
Sarah: And abortion is none of those things.
Mark: None of those things.
Sarah: Abortion is the deliberate taking of human life.
End of story. 
Mark: That's all it is.
Mark: Let me draw an analogy, here.
Sarah: Okay.
Mark: I want you to think about 
Siamese Twins or Conjoined Twins.
And let's say that a doctor concluded...
And by the way, before we continue with
this analogy, let's make the point -
Siamese Twins are two separate 
people. They may be joined...
Sarah: Yeah.
Mark: ...but they're two individual human beings.
Mark: Right?
Sarah: Exactly
Mark: Just like an unborn 
child and the mom.
And let's say that the doctor said, "we 
could save one of these Siamese Twins
by intentionally killing the other one." There's 
not a doctor on earth that would do that.
There's no medical ethics that would justify 
someone going in and intentionally killing
one of the Siamese Twins in 
order to save the other one.
Sarah: Right.
Mark: They might try to save both of them.
Sarah: As they should. That's their job.
Mark: As they should.
And one of them might die in that
process if they're separating them.
But they would never intentionally kill
one Siamese Twin to save the other one.
So again, the issue is always what 
did the actor intend to happen -
as opposed to what might 
have actually happened.
A legitimate physician would never say,
"I will intentionally take the life of the
unborn child to save the mother."
Any more than you'd say, "I'd intentionally take 
the life of the mother to save the unborn child.
They're equally important and 
their right to life is equal.
*Theme Music*
To continue listening to the podcast, visit
LifeDynamics.com/podcast.
The Pro-Life America podcast is 
produced by Life Dynamics Incorporated.
