In the post, she briefly describes consenting to an early induction of her pregnancy at 25 weeks due to pre-eclampsia. Her son, Gabriel, died shortly after birth. She argues that she had an abortion by writing,
She took her surgical cap off. She sat down and picked up my hand. She said "I need you to sign a consent form to be induced. I have to tell you that in all likelihood your baby will die. I have to tell you that at this point, given his gestational age and weight, and given the pre-existing complications, he will die. Most likely before he's born. Do you understand?"I don’t know the full details regarding this situation but I’m of the mind that a procedure whose intended goal is not to kill the child (but rather treat the mother and also treat the child, if possible) isn’t abortion. I’m favorable to Right to Life of Michigan’s policy statement on abortion which says,
I nodded. She handed me the pen. I signed my name.
I, Cheryl-Nancy Elizabeth.
I signed my name. I gave full, free and informed consent. I had options open to me, and this is the choice I made. I consented to kill my child.
I had an abortion.
Abortion is any act or procedure performed with the willful intent to cause the death of an unborn child from conception to birth.....
This position does not oppose medical treatment to save the life of the mother. Treatments may, in rare circumstances, result in the unintended death of her child. The unintended death of the child is not to be construed as abortion. When the life of the mother is judged by competent medical personnel to be in danger, a doctor can and should treat both the mother and her unborn child, striving to save the lives of both.
But Mrs. Spit isn’t really interested in people thinking her situation was different than the situation of women who have abortions. In fact, she claims any differences are completely artificial.
I will stand up with thousands, hundreds of thousands of women. I will say that we made the best choice we could, at the time, under the circumstances. I'm not sorry if you don't like my choice. Frankly, I don't care. Perhaps you think I'm morally bankrupt, perhaps you think we all are. Perhaps you are able to make distinctions between my case and someone else's. I will say that those distinctions are completely artificial. I will say that I am not flattered when you tell me that you think I had a socially acceptable abortion. I will say that you are dead wrong when you tell me that I didn't have an abortion at all because I was dying. I will say this: either I have the choice to chose my life above my son's, or no one does. Either we all have choices, or none of us do.
In her post, she’s trying to provide prolifers with a face to women who’ve had abortions. She also seems to have some anger towards prolifers whom she seems to think believe women who have abortions are horrible. She concludes by writing,
When you fight about abortion, when you say that I am an exception, when you say that we are wrong or horrible or morally degenerate, when you want to take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, would you remember -I find this kind of argument in favor of legal abortion to just not make that much sense. The idea seems to be that because Mrs. Spit’s life was in danger and doctors recommended that she agree to an induced labor at 25 weeks and her son unintentionally but not unexpectantly died, therefore anyone who decides to have an abortion (regardless of the circumstances) is making the “best choice.”
That's my face up there. That's me you're talking about.
To me there seems to be a huge chasm here. It’s a little like arguing that because I sped down the highway to get my injured wife to the hospitable, therefore anyone should be allowed to speed as fast as they want whenever they want for whatever reason they want. That comparison doesn't even work that well because I'm of the mind that the procedure Mrs. Spit had shouldn't even be labeled "abortion" if the intent wasn't to kill Gabriel.
But what I really wonder about is why would anyone in Mrs. Spit’s situation be so ardent in their belief that they had an abortion. Would she still think it was an abortion if the labor had been induced at 30 or 35 weeks? Would it have still be an abortion if Gabriel survived?