I don't have any numbers but the argument against including rape and incest is it will be used by women as an excuse. Everyone will just claim it was a rape.

As for the health of the mother....one procedure used almost exclusively for health reasons is now labeled the partial birth abortion.

Most of the ardent ProLife movement want no exceptions....No abortions for any reason.

My son and his wife recently adopted a most beautiful baby boy. The birthmother comes from a solid and wonderful family. She was a high school senior with firm plans for her future which did not , at this time, include raising a newborn. She became pregnant and, with incredible family support, opted to carry the child to a term delivery. Through the grace of God and good fortune, my son and his wife became the adoptive parents. When I hold this miracle in my arms I think of how easy and tragic another "choice" could have been for this high school senior.

If I ever make it to Crispers please humor me while I pull out picture after picture of our first grandchild.

Originally Posted by billethkid

from our arm chairs with no personal involvement or emotional attachment it is so easy to intellectualize either yes or no depending on the circumstances.
The premise is....do you believe in taking a human life.....yes or no?
No shades of gray...many might think other wise if there was ever a consideration for weeding out the too old or the too sick. Why is that a stretch for the imagination? The taking of a life is the taking of a life no matter how it is served up. BTK

I'm confused by the sentiment here? No shades of gray? Yes or no? Are you therefore against capital punishment? What about "a life for a life" which Jesus Himself categorically condemned? What about taking the life of an enemy? Jesus was unequivocal about that too- telling Peter "Our Rock" to put away his sword and healing the ear of his enemy?

Later revisionists starting with Paul turned Jesus' words into "gray" areas. But Jesus himself was clear ad concise- it was black & white, not gray.

Meanwhile chachacha asks, "does anyone know the statistics for what percentage of abortions in this country are actually for rape, incest, sexual abuse or life of the mother?" Probably no more than the misrepresented numbers of D&E ("partial birth") abortions. I'm not defending it- just letting you know that the percentage that are D&E are extremely minor related to the total of abortions (and yes, there are far too many abortions in this country)- how about helping out by educating sexually active people about birth control! Oh, that's a sin too. Can't win for losing.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

............- how about helping out by educating sexually active people about birth control! Oh, that's a sin too. Can't win for losing.

How about sexually active people show some personal restraint and individual responsibility for their actions? Oh yes, personal responsibility is so "old fashioned" and we have become so modern that if it "feels good," then it doesn't matter who pays the penalty for personal pleasure.

What is supposed to separate human behavior from rutting beasts is the realization that all actions have consequences beyond the "pleasure of the moment." If that is not the case, then mankind's intellectual evolution has regressed to where living in the 21st century is so easy "even a caveman can do it [and fit in comfortably, as the environment and morality is now what it was 20,000 years ago]."

We have definitely come "full circle" around......

In the case of abortion, we are not dealing with right and wrong but rather right and right. Should a woman have the right to control her own body? Certainly! Should an unborn human being have the right to live? Of course! The question is under what circumstances does one right prevail over the other.

The Supreme Court in 1973 made a reasoned effort to separate these conflicting rights in Roe vs Wade. Justice Blackman wrote the majority opinion. If you wish to read this well reasoned opinion, you can find it at http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/

An excerpt from the summary of the opinion reads as follows:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

IOW During the first trimester (rights of the mother prevail), the attending physician in cooperation with the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.

During the second trimester (Mixed rights between mother and baby), the state may regulate abortion in ways that protect maternal health.

During the third trimester (rights of the baby prevail), the state may control abortions to the point of forbidding them so long as the health of the mother is protected.

Since I am not a lawyer, my phrasing may be imprecise. Justice Blackman struck what I believe to be a reasonable balance between the rights of the mother to control her own body and the rights of the unborn child to live. Such concerns as incest and rape are valid during the second trimester. Once the baby reaches viability, the third trimester, he/she has a right to live regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy unless state law says otherwise.

As I read the decision, two things stand out to me. (1) National law has no bearing on this – Blackman clearly says that abortion law is a state decision – we need to stop asking national candidates where they stand on this issue, their stands are irrelevant. (2) Regulation at the state level should be focused on the third trimester – the time when the baby has viability outside the mother’s womb.

To try to achieve an understanding, I suggest that we abandon the following terms:
1. Right to Life. As PTown points out, if you believe in a right to life, are questionable if you do not support prohibition of the death penalty and serious, if not total revocation of war. A better description of this group is Anti-Abortion
2. Freedom of Choice. Choice is this description is a freedom to chose or reject an abortion by the mother without input from the father, grandparents, etc. Choice does not necessarily apply to any other aspects of life, just as right to life does not necessarily apply. Better description – No right to life.
3. Fetus – This is a very accurate medical term (as Justice Blackman points out in his opinion), however it is used to deny the fact that this is an unborn human being with all the right to live as any other human.

It seems to me that we should start with Justice Blackman's well-reasoned approach to supporting the rights of both the mother and the child and go forward from there. Just my thoughts.

There is a distinct difference between what is legal versus what is moral. The Supreme Court, despite any belief to the contrary, does not place itself in the role of God, but as the authority on the U.S. Constitution and the arbitrator of disputes between the States.

There are many situations where things can be legally correct, but are morally wrong. Prostitution, divorce, and most campaign practices are just quick examples, yet in many jurisdictions and several laws of the land, they are condoned and appear to even be encouraged when taxed.

So, the question becomes whether one's personal morality and code of conduct is based on the Bible, the Torah or the Quran; or instead is found in the Constitution, U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, State statutes and/or municipal ordinances.

Me? When it comes to morality and code of conduct, I go along with a popular hot dog maker, "and answer to a higher authority..."

...and yes, there is no difference in abortion or capital punishment - when the state condones or accomplishes the taking of a life in situations other than self defense, there is no difference. That's why both the major parties are hypocrites in their philosophies.

...and yes, there is no difference in abortion or capital punishment - when the state condones or accomplishes the taking of a life in situations other than self defense, there is no difference.

Not sure I agree with you on that one. Capital punishment is not the taking of an innocent life. Abortion is. Capital punishment is just that, punishment for a capitol crime which is of course is the crime of murder.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Not sure I agree with you on that one. Capital punishment is not the taking of an innocent life. Abortion is. Capital punishment is just that, punishment for a capitol crime which is of course is the crime of murder.

The slippery slope has always been, when is capital punishment justified? Each state that has sanctioned capital punishment, and the federal government in it's sanction, has a different definition, set of applying circumstances, and proscription policy. So, as with many things, it's a matter of geography and jurisdiction that determines whether a state execution can be conducted.

"Murder" itself is even segmented as to when, who, how and to what circumstance. Kidnapping, treason, desertion and espionage still stand as capital crimes. So, it becomes a matter of "public policy" by geography when the state can take a life.

So, we take it in the first trimester, no problem; the second trimester, some angst, but still done; the third trimester, questionable; the day after six-weeks premature (still third trimester), that's murder; assisted suicide, okay in Washington State, Oregon and Montana, but murder elsewhere. Shades of "Logan's Run" as to when the next state-directed circumstance shall be.

Humankind has wrestled with this issue all over the globe and has tried to intellectualize state-condoned killings in a myriad of ways, situations, reasonings and rationales. There was a time in this country when horse-thievery and cattle rustling were capital offenses, along with several other actions now considered, at best, grand larceny. After all these attempts to refine our definitions, we still flounder around, wordsmithing it all.

Perhaps, we just aren't smart enough to make the right decison.......

What slays me is that most pro-lifers I've met are also pro-capital punishment. That just doesn't make logical sense. To try to qualify it by saying "innocent" life is ridiculous in my opinion. We either believe in the sanctity of human life or we don't. And how can you be 100% sure in the cases of capital punishment - we've had so many cases overturned recently, for example, based on DNA evidence. If you're a Christian, the bible says taking a life is not okay under any circumstances.

The bottom line is, public opinion polls have consistently shown that most Americans favor abortion in cases where (a) the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, (b) the woman is physically handicapped, (c) the fetus suffers from a severe genetic defect, (d) the woman's health is jeopardized by the pregnancy, or (e) if the woman is a pregnant, unmarried teenager.

Take a look at children born with serious handicaps or health defects that are up for adoption; or children of addicts that have fetal alcohol syndrome or are HIV infected; or kids with mental health issues. Do you think these kids get adopted? My guess is a large percentage of them become wards of the state, or end up in prison . And most importantly, what about protecting a women's health and safety?

Most people do not believe in abortion without restrictions, but the courts have decided that some types of abortions are necessary in our society. First and foremost, abortion laws protect a women's health.

Originally Posted by Taj44

.....

Most people do not believe in abortion without restrictions, but the courts have decided that some types of abortions are necessary in our society. First and foremost, abortion laws protect a women's health.

Not entirely correct. The courts have not decided in the necessity of any abortion, but rather have stated that in specific situations, an abortion is not a criminal action.

Abortion laws do not protect a woman's health. Instead, a "Solomon's split" rationale has occurred, whereby a "woman's life" has been legally rationalized as being more valuable to society than that of a being requiring sustenance and protection from a host. That same rationale has the state finding itself mired in "pull the plug" decisions on a daily basis, especially since the issue has a fiscal impact. Sustenance and protection also covers most welfare recipients - should they be subject to termination for being dependent as well? Where's the line, and who says in won't shift again because we have "progressed" in our thinking?

Again, when we show how "smart" we are in these matters, how "dumb" we are always seems to take center stage.

But we are still talking about a capital crime or in the latter assisted suicide. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life that does not have the choice.

You commit a crime you pay the price. If it’s legal and you want to off yourself that’s another choice. The baby has no choice or the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s just killed.

I sympathize with children who are victims of rape, incest, and abuse and become pregnant; and women who's lives are in danger if a pregnancy continues. To forbid these victims an abortion is criminal in my mind. Thank God we have Planned Parenthood, ACLU and other organizations to lobby for women's reproductive rights. And the best thing is we have a President who will surely appoint a Supreme Court justice that favors women's issues.

Thank God we also have other organizations that lobby for the rights of the million or so children killed every year who never got a say in the matter. Oh I forgot, we don’t care about the children anymore, it’s all about the adults. I guess in the case of the President we can either abort them or heap mountains of debt on them. Such a deal for the kids.

What happens when we older folk become just as "inconvenient" as an unwanted pregnancy? Shall we be terminated, too? If one end of the chronological string can be considered as expendable because the middle age group is "more important," why not the other end of the string be expendable, too? And what makes you think that it won't happen? What's to prevent it, when the precedent is already set and it makes things "simpler" for the middle age group?

Oh, I forget - we're "smarter" than that, and the government won't let that happen......

Originally Posted by Laker14

So we should outlaw abortion so these otherwise unborn children can do minimum wage jobs and fund our retirement.

Of course,

Wow. How many abortions have there been? Of the many millions of abortions I wonder if any of them could have been the next Edison, Einstein, Gates, George Washington, Margaret Thatcher, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Lincoln, Reagan, Shakespeare, etc.,etc.
Well, we will never know, will we?

Keedy