I would most likely need a probability percentage of the chances of the mother dying or not. I'd be more willing to permit an abortion if the mother was at definite risk than I would be for any other reason Forgive the excessive quoting, but this part intrigued me. So...now we're willing to admit there is a situation where a CHOICE has to be made. The question then becomes "WHO gets to make that choice" Is the government, more specifically the right-wing conservative portion of our government going to tell a woman: "sorry, you have to go through with this...even thought one or BOTH of you may not survive!" Because, in medicine sometimes there just IS NOT TIME to do a probability percentage...and we do "what we think is best". The other comment I found interesting was: "willing to permit an abortion". I'm not trying to question your beliefs (or change your views)...but it's interesting that we've now moved from 100% against abortion, to recognition that there are circumstances where it MAY be necessary. I find that kind of willingness to be flexible encouraging (given your previous hard-line stance on the matter) As for that "news" your friend told you, 1st I'd like to see where this information came from...2nd the wording chosen had a very sinsiter tone to it. I doubt this is some part of a "secret rite of passage" for doctors in California...but could possibly be that the difference between: ((cue the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" announcer)) Join us next time for... ANYONE who wishes to become a medical doctor in the state of California MUST perform an abortion in order to get licensed or The State of California will require all medical doctors licensed in the state to be capable of performing an abortion I don't get my news on gun control from the NRA...and this sounds like a bad attempt at "spinning" the news in a negative way.