I think this answer that I wrote to another commenter applies here as well:

By banning abortions at any point in the pregnancy, you are keeping women from a life-saving medical procedure, but ensuring that no morally gray area abortions are performed.

By allowing all abortions, you are saving women's lives at the risk of having some morally gray area abortions performed.

I see it similarly to providing food to families on welfare. Are there some families cheating the system? Likely. But would I rather have the families that truly need the food go hungry?

Or is it better to simply understand that there may be some risk, but it's better not to let families go hungry than to worry about families who might cheat the system?

The real point to the question is getting at the difference in belief systems. Are you willing to let people - in this case women - have free will to choose for themselves, even if that means allowing for some risk? Or will you force your will on others at the risk of endangering lives?

As I stated, an abortion carried out late in a pregnancy is almost never used as "birth control". There is a problem. And the women who have to make that decision are devastated to lose the baby they've spent months bonding with. And NOBODY besides the woman and her doctor should have any say over what needs to be done. Nor should she have to already be on her death bed before action is taken.

In addition, as you have mentioned, you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure. So how big is the risk really?

Thank you for reading and commenting!