Welcome to Gaia! ::

Which is why I'm pro-artaficial wombs if one accepts the assumption a fetus is the equivalent of a born human adult.

However not all abortions can be done where the fetus is removed alive (or if doing so it would be pointless).

1st trimester = suction abortions. It is removed alive and whole. It dies out of the uterus within seconds. This is exactly what you ask for - it is not killed in order to have it removed, it is killed because it is no longer in the womb. If I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of abortions (along the lines of 3/4 of them) are this sort of abortion.

2nd trimester = dismemberment. It cannot be removed whole because it is too large to do so and D&X-esque abortions are not permitted electively (which could potentially be done to remove it whole). However doing so is an exercise in futility since fetuses in the second trimester cannot live out of the uterus on their own and hope to survive into childhood (except possibly late into it, ie 24th week and onward). This is an instance where it must be killed in order to have it removed. I would only consider this a problem if it could survive out of the womn on it's own had it been removed whole. Since it would have died had it been removed alive and intact I don't really see why the distinction would make a difference in these cases.

3rd trimester = D&X,or some variant, where it is removed in a birth like manner except that the head is vacuumed out for ease of removal. This is only ever done in cases of medical emergency where the fetus is already dead, will be dead soon after birth, or the mother will die otherwise. At this point in time removal of the fetus does not necessitate death, and so that is why I'd be inclined to say induced birth would be better than abortion (ie killed prior to removal).

It would, but it is terribly more risky (infection wise) and more dangerous at the time of operation (more likely to have complications during C-section than during an abortion) since C-sections require opening up flesh. If the fetus were guaranteed to be dead once removed anyway (ie pre week 20 to be on the safe side) why bother taking such huge risks when the end result is the same all for the sake of a distinction that doesn't seem to matter in the end anyway (since it'll be dead whether suctioned or C-sectioned)?

Though it is arguable for things past that point in time where there's a fighting chance for survival.

Just in my personal opinion... if it will die either way, what does the distinction between killing it to remove it and removing it to let it die matter, especially considering the end result will be the same and one requires significantly more risk to the woman involved?

Oh I agree. The risk certainly doesn't justify it.

But if a fetus is ever granted rights by law that's the only way I can think of to remove the fetus without compromising a woman's bodily integrity. Otherwise the issue is about more than just a woman's right to her own body, it's a woman's right to the body inside her body as well.

And that image just made my day xd

You're very welcome. 3nodding

I can go ahead and resize it if anyone else would like to use it.

God I love these things... they put so much into perspective.

Apparently I have a fanclub. XD

Indeed you do. Pyro is fan number two....it rymes -_-