What would be a pro-choice response to abortion survivors?

There have been abortion survivors (that is, fetuses who survived attempted abortions) who have now given testimony about their stories - typically pro-llfe arguments.
What is or would be the pro-choice response to such survivor testimonies?

“We’re sorry you are in an injured condition, but if the abortion had been effective you would not be suffering the way you are today?”
“Your suffering is acknowledged, but we cannot deny millions of women the ability to choose an abortion because of the suffering of a few survivors of botched abortion attempts?”*
I’m not being sarcastic - this is a genuine question. How do pro-choicers usually respond?

They usually don’t get a chance to respond, because pro-choicers usually don’t get invited to events where these people testify.

I’m sure these testimonies are real but I’ve never heard of them, do you have links to any particularly good videos.

Unless out of pure meanness or for propaganda purposes (in which cases it could very well be a lie!), why would anyone even tell the child about the failed abortion?
I bet most, if not all such stories are BS.

From a pro-life site: Remembering the time an abortion survivor ruined a Planned Parenthood celebration

Shortened version: In 2006 the Colorado legislature was set to honor Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains on its 90th anniversary. A pro-life legislator State Senator Ted Harvey brought in a woman who advocates for cerebral palsy, Gianna Jessen, and asked that she be allowed to sing the National Anthem. She did so to applause.

Then Senator Harvey explained *why * Jessen had cerebral palsy - she survived a saline abortion in the 7th month of gestation. The response was the Speaker promptly dropping the gavel to cut him off.

So that’s one point of data. When confronted with an abortion survivor, attempts were made to silence any speech about the circumstance that led to her disability.
There are several people who have survived abortions and who make speeches on the same. In addition to Jessen, Melissa Ohden and Ana Rosa Rodriguez have spoken out, amongst others.

A pro-choice entity doesn’t have to “respond” in person, of course. A statement made to the media or on a blog can suffice as a response.

Well, in the case of Ana Rosa Rodriguez she lost an arm to an abortionist’s tools. And that doctor was subsequently tried and convicted for assaulting patients and violating various aspect of New York State law. So her situation was pretty well reported on.

That’ll do it. We haven’t banned all cars because of the inevitability of accidents; we won’t ban all abortions simply because some have gone bad.

If someone is born with a major deformity or injury, they’d likely be naturally inquisitive. If I were born without an arm, I’d want to know why.

Sure, people could lie, but the truth might come out nonetheless.

So would you say what happened to her was due to a legal procedure done by a competent professional?

There are legal medical procedures by competent professionals that fail to go as planned, too.
Name me a complex medical procedure that has a 100% all-went-as-planned rate.

I would first have to establish the facts of the case. In the LA Times article an alleged abortion survivor testified, but detail was lacking, as was a response from from the original abortion provider and medical background on abortions at the time. I have not clicked other links on this page.

As an aside, I would note that abortion providers believe they are saving lives: botched abortions were a lot more frequent before Roe v Wade. But as for a particular example, I would need to see the facts established first.

Why should abortion survivors exist in the first place? After all do not most of those who are in favour of legalized abortion only favour it before viability excepting extreme circumstances such as when the mother’s life is threatened?

Her mother claimed she did not know how long she had been pregnant but she thought she was about 17 weeks pregnant… New York state law banned abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy. The prosecutor argued that the doctor reasonably should have known that Rodriguez was 30 to 32 weeks pregnant.

The legality of the procedure was dependent upon the timing, not on the details of the act. Legal to dismember a fetus at 22 weeks. Not legal at 26 weeks.

And the prosecutor proved that the doctor reasonably should have known that the patient was past the point that the procedure could be legally performed.

The doctor continued to insist upon his innocence after his conviction.

Gee, I can’t. Is that a good reason to shut down all hospitals?

That’s slightly different, though. Or, at least, you can expect the abortion survivor to see it differently.

Car accidents happens because people want to travel from A to B. But the injury the abortion survivor carries happened because somebody was trying to kill them, or destroy them, if you prefer. The injury wasn’t unintended; on the contrary, the person performing the abortion wanted to injure them even more profoundly than in fact the did - to injure them fatally, in fact.

So they may not see your analogy as quite apt.

OP already answered it. It’s for the greater good. You think your commute is bad now? What if there were another 60 million people trying to cram in there?

A procedure that when successful kills half of your patients.

A procedure that, when successful, kills none of your patients.