Let’s be clear. The vast, vast majority of abortions are not to save the mother’s life, but if not to settle a matter of convenience (“I don’t want a child right now” type reasons, the majority of abortions basically boil down to this), are sometimes for reasons of the mother’s health. I don’t think broadly speaking that abortion for the mother’s life, is the same as doing so for the mother’s health. Abortion should absolutely be the very ultimate of last resorts when the mother is in imminent danger of death (and there is little or no chance of her child surviving either way).
Pre-eclampsia while it can be treatable or manageable (my mother had it when pregnant with my sister, who was born via emergency caesarian about a month prematurely - both are very healthy, 27 years later…), is also very very dangerous; it’s a condition of extremely high blood pressure. It can easily and sometimes rapidly lead to multiple organ failure and death (including the death of the baby). While not every case requires abortion (perhaps if every hospital has every facility and every medical practitioner and every expectant mother knows what to look for, relatively few would require it), some definitely do, on the basis that either two lives will be lost if if is not performed, and “only” one if it is.
When abortion is a matter of life-and-death for the mother as well as her child, and when there is no way to save the life of both (as say happened with my mother and my sister), it should be an available option. It’s pretty much the only time when it should be an available option, of course.
