It's a pretty simple question, wouldn't you say? Who will save the mother? Thus far, the answer is the complaint about the denial of personhood to the foetus. How about this, how about pro-lifer's become concerned with saving lives.. This includes the mother's life. Because so far, all I see from the other side of the ravine is only talk and demands "the baby" be saved. Who will save the mother? See, if you are pro life, you should be very concerned that there are hundreds of hospitals in the US denying women health care because they are pregnant. Why do pro-lifer's not care about the mother's life? Why aren't pro-lifer's picketing outside hospitals that refuse to treat women with ectopic pregnancies or who are miscarrying and have gone septic because there is a foetal heartbeat? Why are these women's lives not worthy of pro-lifer's picketing and protesting about? You are pro-life - for the purpose of this scenario. A woman is desperately ill and there is a risk of death and the hospital refuses to treat her because she is pregnant. Why aren't pro lifer's picketing about that? Why don't they ever picket about the life of the mother? Let us look at Ireland as a prime example. Abortion was outlawed. A Hindu woman who has miscarried is rushed to hospital. The normal course of action here is to operate on her. This is basic and standard medical care for a woman who has miscarried. If the 'pregnancy' has not come out, then she will need surgery to clean out her uterus to prevent infection. So she gets to the hospital and she is sent home. A few hours later, she is rushed back, in agonizing pain as a miscarriage in the 2nd trimester often is.. And she and her husband are advised that they were losing their much wanted child. They do not operate. Instead, they send her home. Two days later, she returns to the hospital and requests a termination. It is a miscarriage, the miscarriage is not coming out.. It is a doomed pregnancy by all accounts. She asks for treatment 3 times and each time she is refused. Why is she refused? Because the foetus still had a faint heartbeat, treating her would mean they would be doing an abortion. Two days after that, with the remains of her now infected miscarriage still in her uterus, she collapsed. The day after that, the remains of the foetus and the infected tissue of the pregnancy was removed from her uterus after the doctor diagnosed her as having gone into septic shock due to the infection that had set in because they had refused to treat her when she had miscarried days earlier. She died of organ failure and cardiac arrest a few days later. Pro-choice protested about what happened to her. Pro-lifer's were nowhere to be seen. Why is that? Why was her life not worthy of protest by pro-lifer's? And why was a religious law being applied to her, when she did not even follow that religion? Why is religion even involved in medical care in this fashion? Were pro-choice people being extremists for protesting? So yeah, what about the mother? Who is going to save the mother? Would you have picketed and protested that this pregnant woman was refused treatment until she went septic and died? Would you have protested about her right to life? Or would you have perhaps posted a tacky pro-life save the baby and put it up for adoption cartoon? I dare you to answer that without referring once to the personhood of the foetus.