Allysia Finley has an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that talks about the arrogance and self-appointed moral superiority of scientists in our nation. One of her comments especially drew my attention, though. In the context of abortion and Roe v Wade, she wrote,

…the American Medical Association’s then-President Jack Resneck Jr asserted that states that restricted abortion would be “risking devastating consequences, including patients’ lives.” Why? Because “evidence and experience show us conclusively that the risk of death during or after childbirth is approximately 14 times greater than the risk of death from abortion-related complications.”
Comparing the risk of giving birth with that of terminating a pregnancy is morally dubious.

Including patients’ lives. Resnick doesn’t care a fig for the patients he so cynically ignores: those babies being killed by abortion. That’s the devasting consequence[] that Resnick ignores.

There only thing dubious about Resnick’s overt comparison is the comparison itself. What Resneck was comparing, and what Finley seems to have missed in his comparison, in fact was the certainty of the death of the baby from abortion with the mere, and empirically very small, risk of death from abortion-related complications and the empirically nearly as small (because 14 times nearly nothing still is very close to nothing) risk of death from childbirth complications. That comparison is not at all morally dubious. It’s clearly morally wrong, and it’s undisputedly morally abhorrent.