An Approved Abortion Alternative

The people debating the abortion issue falsely assume that there are only two possibilities for ending a pregnancy.  Wait for the baby to be born or kill it and remove it.

There is a third option which would be acceptable under Roe v. Wade.   When the baby is sufficiently developed to survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care  any doctor attempting to end the pregnancy could  be required  to attempt to remove the baby alive.   The baby would become a ward of the government which would pay  for the operation and subsequent medical care until  the baby is  adopted.   The government would also pay for follow up care for the mother including treating mental health problems such as postpartum depression.

Abortion supporters  could not claim  cost would prevent women from ending pregnancies early because government would pay all  costs.

There are numerous complications from abortions that can adversely affect a woman's physical and  mental health, including fatal bleeding that can be caused by an extremely primitive procedure which  involves pulling the baby out a piece at a time.  The baby's blood can prevent the abortionist from seeing if the mother is bleeding  

Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding.  Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy  would have the benefit  of the child being removed alive.  This approach to ending a late term pregnancy  should  give both sides what they want.  The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy early and the child would be born alive.  

Roe v. Wade allows "In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger."

A baby shouldn't have to die because the mother doesn't want it.  A right to end a pregnancy prematurely shouldn't include a right to end the life of a helpless baby .