Another thought exercise about abortion

Today I read about a baby boy who was born Monday in Bangladesh who has two heads. If you look at the picture it is amazing, as the infant really has two fully developed heads, with two mouths that eat food that goes to the same stomach. I am so moved by the sight of the infant and pray for his best possible outcome.

Let us assume that he lives. Look at that picture and tell me, who among you would be eager to grab a saw and decide that one head should remain and the other must be removed? No one in their right mind would think that. Yet suppose that one of the heads dies. Doesn't it now become much easier to discern, because now it is a medical procedure? The medical procedure would be justified as removing an organ that is endangering survival of the patient. That happens thousands of times a day in the world, where a dangerous organ is removed from a patient if it threats the life or health of the patient.

So would you ever have a law on the books allowing and even requiring beheading? Of course not. That is the point of my first question. No one would look at the living being, this sweet baby's both heads being the example, and point to one and say, "Cut if off." But if one of the heads becomes dysfunctional, or could cause the death of the child, then one has to rely on standard medical authorized procedures which is removal of the organ that is diseased and threatening the life of the patient.

This is why I have never had a problem with abortion being a legal medical procedure, but am totally pro life and anti-abortion. There are situations that while it is morally weak, it is medically justified, but if people were honest, they'd know that those are very, very rare. It is a difference between having "beheading" be an admired and sought out surgery, especially for infants like this Bangladesh baby, or with fused twins, etc, which of course is insane, versus having a standard medical procedure to perform if one has no other choices to save the literal life of the patient. Some women choose to risk death rather than remove even a life threatening pre born infant. They are saintly of the type we call everyday saints. Other women and their families would chose to live, especially if they are a mom to other children, and could morally opt for the abortion if their lives were in the balance. THIS is why I thought that abortion needs to be taught to doctors as an emergency medical procedure, but not as a "beheading" option.

Imagine my outrage that my support for abortion being a legally taught medical procedure for emergency situations where sainthood is not a wise option, and where it is understandable, to instead resulting in millions of women saying "their health is threatened by this pregnancy because they are bummed out and don't want a child, and don't want anyone else to have it via adoption because we're too self absorbed to 'sacrifice' the time out of our busy sexual schedules in order to let the baby be born to term."

So I hope the example of the little sweet baby in Bangladesh with the two heads and very uncertain future helps you, once again, to discern how someone can acknowledge that abortion is a medical procedure (like removal of an organ that no longer functions or threatens the life of the mother) but not an "option" (like beheading).