This is a personal issue, not a political one. Or at least, it should be personal. Why is it being raised here in the political forum?

There is no such thing as "disposing" of a living infant in this country, anywhere. Your attempts at devilizing this subject are pathetic & imply no knowledge whatsoever of how things actually work! Pretty sure your example signed waivers before anything was done, too.
Oh, and yer Babble clearly states life begins with the first breathe, no harm no foul to getting rid of a parasite (within the actual definition of "parasite"!) any earlier. You demonstrate for tapeworms?

This is an issue which can never be solved. At what point is a fetus viable? A day earlier? A day later? My view is if you must have a pregnancy termination, funding for the first month would be available as a zygote/ embryo is not conscious or viable intra utero. Personally speaking a termination should be done no later than the 2nd month but funding must be available to economically deprived women. The state can not provide for unlimited forced full term pregnancy results. So any "right to life" or anti abortion choice must pay for the adoption of damaged children. Crack addicts, genetically damaged, diseased? Who wants such a burden? The rich & famous can & will obtain anything they desire. It is the poor, that will be forced to carry to term the addicted life., the infected life, the deformed life. It is a cruel subject with no happy ending.

First off, there are almost no cases where an abortion is performed after the 2nd trimester except to save the life of a mother. Pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). “Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death." In these cases, an abortion is an emergency procedure. It's not a choice.

There's very limited data on abortions after the 2nd trimester, but it's believed that abortions for fetal anomalies are a small minority.

"Late-term abortion" is a political construct, not a medical term. It's basically a non-issue. According to the CDC, about 1.3 percent of abortions were performed at or greater than 21 weeks of gestation in 2015. In contrast, 91.1 percent were performed at or before 13 weeks and 7.6 percent at 14 to 20 weeks.

In the case of the "otherwise healthy young lady", obviously there are risks in any surgical procedure. If she was otherwise healthy, why did she have an abortion? At what stage of pregnancy? There are missing pieces of the puzzle there and it may be that her family doesn't have the full story.

Not to ''wordsmith'' your question but....if the child has been born naturally, my guess is that it's euthanasia, illegal everywhere. Late term abortions are always done in the case of severe fetal abnormalities, when immediate death due to a life of horrible disability would result.

I find it odd that a patient died as a result of a late term procedure. Very odd.

To answer your other question....late term vaginal abortion would be too brutal. A "c section" is far more humane.